Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

TRADE AND NAVIGATION.

Copy ordered,
of Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1931."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH CLAIMS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in the settlement of the claims of British creditors against Soviet Russia; and if he will state the present position?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in regard to the settlement of outstanding debts due by the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics to Great Britain and to British citizens?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): The Joint Anglo-Soviet Committee which is investigating this question has now reached an agreement regarding the functions and procedure of the subcommittees which will inquire into the various categories of claims. It has also been agreed that Sub-Committee B—which deals with the bondholders' claims and Soviet counter claims—will meet on the 26th of January, and Sub-Committee C—which deals with miscellaneous private debts, claims and counter claims on both sides—will meet early in February.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication of when any payments are likely to be made?

Captain MACDONALD: Can the hon. Gentleman say who the chairmen of these various committees and sub-committees are to be?

Mr. DALTON: I shall be very glad to give the hon. and gallant Member that information if he will put down a question. Altogether, there are six committees to be set up.

Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: Can there be a postponement of any loans to Soviet Russia until these claims have been met?

Mr. DALTON: I am not aware of any loans being made to Soviet Russia.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Do we understand that no evidence has been taken from the claimants, and that things are still in the air?

Mr. DALTON: What I said in the answer was that the two committees are shortly going to meet. The sub-committees will determine their own procedure about taking evidence on that matter.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the then British Government, to get the Russians to come into the War, promised to give them Constantinople?

BRITISH RELATIONS.

Sir K. WOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning the matters which are still outstanding and in respect of which protests and other communications have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Soviet Government?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to answer in detail a general question of this nature. A number of communications on a variety of subjects are continually passing between His Majesty's Government and other Governments with which they are in diplomatic relations. If the right hon. Gentleman has any particular matter in mind, perhaps he will put down a specific question regarding it.

Sir K. WOOD: Surely the hon. Member is ready to make a statement this afternoon as to the number of grave protests which have been made quite recently, what action has been taken and whether
the Soviet Government has expressed any intention of meeting the desires of the present Government?

Mr. SMITHERS: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many protests he has made to the Soviet Government since he took office; has he received replies to them all; in how many cases has the reply been satisfactory; and in how many cases has the protest had to be repeated?

Mr. DALTON: If by "protests" the hon. Member means representations to the Soviet Government comparable with those made on seven occasions between 1921 and the rupture of relations in 1927, the only representations of this nature made by my right hon. Friend related to the allegations made by the Soviet Public Prosecutor in the Moscow trial of November-December last. The House is aware from my right hon. Friend's reply of the 15th of December last that His Majesty's Government recorded their dissatisfaction at the attitude adopted by the Soviet Government in this matter. My right hon. Friend has, however, on three other occasions warned the Soviet Ambassador of the danger to the relations between our respective Governments of certain activities which were regarded by His Majesty's Government as breaches of the pledges exchanged in December, 1929, and has also, as he informed the House on the 8th of December, made a protest in connection with a wireless message broadcast from Moscow.

Sir K. WOOD: Have not all these protests been treated with utter contempt?

Mr. SMITHERS: Is there still a difference of opinion between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government as to the interpretation of the Protocol referred to, and are any steps being taken to try to come to an agreed understanding of that Protocol?

Mr. DALTON: I do not think that arises directly out of the question on the Paper.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman inform us what was the reply given by the Soviet Government to these three representations and warnings by the Foreign Secretary?

BROADCASTING.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the organisation of wireless broadcasting is under Government control in the Soviet Republic?

Mr. DALTON: Regulations regarding the degree of Government control exercised over wireless broadcasting in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are contained in a decree of the People's Commissars of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of the 15th of February, 1929, as amended in 1930. I will send a translation of this decree to the right hon. Gentleman, if he desires to see it.

Mr. HACKING: I would like to have that document. Does the answer mean that the Soviet Government have control over broadcast talks? If so, does it mean that the Soviet Government hold themselves responsible for the broadcast talks which have been so damaging to this country?

Mr. DALTON: Perhaps I had better let the right hon. Gentleman have the copy of the decree in order that he may form his own opinion.

Mr. HACKING: Cannot the hon. Gentleman form his own opinion?

Mr. DALTON: Opinions might differ between myself and the right hon. Gentleman. This is a somewhat long decree, and, if I am asked to summarise it, I would say that there is some degree of Government control. The precise degree is indicated in the decree, which I am offering to let the right hon. Gentleman see in extenso.

Mr. SMITHERS: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any broadcast of propaganda from Russia has been reported to him during the Recess; and, if so, what action has he taken?

Mr. DALTON: The only action which my right hon. Friend has considered it necessary to take is to arrange for stenographic reports of messages broadcast from Moscow during the Recess to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. SMITHERS: Has there been any repetition of broadcasting from Russia during the Recess?

Mr. DALTON: Various wireless talks have been broadcast from Moscow. Copies of these have been supplied by the Postmaster-General to the Foreign Office. My right hon. Friend has directed that copies are to be placed in the Library of the House where the hon. Member and others who are interested can read them.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: In view of their unfriendly character and their damaging effect upon good relations, will the Under-Secretary of State—

Mr. SPEAKER: Commander Bellairs.

TRADE DELEGATION (DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY).

Mr. ALBERY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied that there has been no abuse of the diplomatic immunity granted to the Russian trade delegation in this country?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any abuse of the diplomatic immunity conferred upon the Soviet Trade Delegation by Article 2 of the Temporary Commercial Agreement of the 16th of April, 1930.

POLITICAL, TRADING AND TRADE UNION ORGANISATIONS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Department has sufficient information on which to prepare a White Paper showing the relations which exist between the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and the principal political, trading, and trade union organisations existing in Soviet Russia?

Mr. DALTON: The Commercial Secretary at the British Embassy at Moscow is at present engaged on a report on the organisation of the administrative machinery of Soviet foreign trade. In view of its complexity, it is unlikely that this report will be completed in the near future; but my right hon. Friend is prepared to lay it when received. In the meantime I would refer the hon. Member to various works of reference on the subject, the titles and particulars, of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of the divergence of opinion between the representatives of His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Republics, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the difference between those two points?

Mr. DALTON: I am afraid I have not understood the hon. Member's question. The difference between what two points?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In the expressed opinion of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary there is a certain interpretation of these conventions—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put a question on the Paper.
Following are the titles and particulars:
List of authorities on the Soviet Union, with special reference to the position of Trade Unions and Political Trading Organisations under the Soviet Government
.

(1) Harper, S. N.—Civic Training in Soviet Russia (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1929).
(2) Chamberlin, W. H.—Soviet Russia (Duckworth, 1930).
(3) Feller, Arthur.—Das Experiment des Bolschevismus (1929).
(4) Fischer, L.—The Soviets in World Affairs (Jonathan Cape, 1930).
(5) Dobb, Maurice.—Russian Economic Development since the Revolution (New York: Dutton, 1928).
(6) Yugov, A.—Economic Trends in Soviet Russia (George Allen and Unwin, London, 1929).
(7) Professor Paul Haensel, D.LL.—The Economic Policy of Soviet Russia (P. S. King and Son, Limited, London, 1930).

LENA GOLDFIELDS (ARBITRATION AWARD).

Sir W. DAVISON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the House particulars of the reply of the Russian Soviet Government to the representations made by His Majesty's Government with reference to the non-payment of the arbitral award to Lena Goldfields, Limited?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the attitude of the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics to the Lena Goldfields arbitral award?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend does not consider that the interests of the company would be served by the making of any statement at the present time. The Foreign Office is working in close collaboration with the company, and the case is still under discussion between His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow and the Soviet Government.

Sir W. DAVISON: Cannot the hon. Gentleman say, apart from the methods of payment, has the Soviet Government recognised its liability?

Mr. DALTON: I will answer that by repeating that we are primarily concerned with the interests of the company; and my right hon. Friend, after careful consideration, is of opinion that it is not in the interests of the company to make any further statement at this moment.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Commander BELLAIRS: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will communicate with our Ambassador in Moscow as to including in the White Paper or a supplementary White Paper information as to the famine conditions in Soviet Russia?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to include in the White Paper any information other than that which it is designed to include, namely, legislative ordinances dealing with labour in the Soviet Union.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the hellish conditions in Glasgow?

TIMBER EXPORTS (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 44
asked the Prime Minister if he will inform the House of the result of his inquiry with regard to the conditions obtaining in Russian timber camps as testified to in the sworn statement forwarded to him by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young); whether any official British representative has visited the camps in question; and whether such representative has had full facilities for acquainting himself with the
conditions under which timber exported into this country from Russia is produced and handled?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): My inquiry consisted in seeking advice as to whether the various statements submitted to me regarding conditions in Russian timber camps would warrant action against the imports of that timber, under the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act, and that advice has been in the negative. No official British representative has visited the camps in question. I desire to take this opportunity of saying that I fully realise the anxiety caused in this country by the allegations regarding the conditions under which timber imported into the United Kingdom from the Soviet Union is produced. The House will understand that it is hardly suitable for one sovereign and independent State to request permission to make an investigation into the internal affairs of another. His Majesty's Government have, however, felt it only right to make known to the Soviet Government, through His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow, the statements that are being made and the extent of the interest on the subject felt in this country.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the Prime Minister realise that this timber is being daily marketed in this country, and that British people are unwilling, as long as there is this allegation that it is made by slave labour, to have it put into their houses? Does he not recognise the responsibility of getting definite information, aye or no, whether these allegations are true or are false?

Mr. THORNE: Is the Prime Minister aware that the timber produced in Finland and Sweden is produced under worse conditions than in Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly aware of those statements and alleged statements, but I hope the House will remember that in this matter it is one sovereign State dealing with another, and it is not only regarding Russian timber but many other imports into this country, and similarly regarding exports from this country, that interested people in various countries tell similar stories.

Colonel ASHLEY: Does the Prime Minister intend to press for an answer from the Soviet Government to this communication?

The PRIME MINISTER: That question had better be addressed to the Foreign Office. In that respect, I am simply the vehicle of communication of what has been done through the proper channels.

Colonel ASHLEY: Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to answer so important a question himself and not refer us to some inferior Minister?

The PRIME MINISTER: I demur very much to that. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a certain order in these matters, that it is the duty of the Department named to make these communications and, when these communications have been made and an answer is received, then, if it is necessary, it comes under my notice, but not before.

Mr. McSHANE: Has any foreign nation made representations to Russia in respect of the allegations that are being made?

The PRIME MINISTER: Really, I must not make myself responsible for answering questions which it is not my business to answer.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask one non-provocative question? As the right hon. Gentleman is unable to act, will he invite a representative of the League of Nations to visit Russia for this purpose?

The PRIME MINISTER: That question should he put on the Paper.

Mr. LEES: Is the Prime Minister prepared to give the pledge of the Government that they are prepared to prevent slave conditions for miners and railway-men in this country?

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the Prime Minister aware that his action may result in weeks and weeks of delay? It is easy to investigate the question in this country.

At end of Questions—

Sir W. DAVISON: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The failure of the Government to make adequate inquiry in regard to conditions obtaining in Russian timber camps, as testified to in the sworn statement forwarded to
the Prime Minister by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks and otherwise, whereby it, is alleged that Russian timber, which is daily being marketed in this country, is produced and handled by slave labour, thereby affronting the feelings and traditions of British citizens"—
[Laughter]—it is not a matter for laughter—
increasing unemployment, and infringing the provisions of the Prison Goods Act.

Mr. THORNE: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time it is quite impossible for any Russian timber to come over on account of the Baltic being closed?

Mr. SPEAKER: Again, I am afraid that I cannot accept this Motion under Standing Order No. 10. It would not be in order.

Sir W. DAVISON: On that point of Order. This is the earliest opportunity we have had of raising the matter. While it is true that Archangel may be closed by ice, the timber is daily being marketed in this country, and I submit that it is an urgent matter which should be dealt with by the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. McSHANE: On the point of Order, I submit that this matter cannot be said to be urgent inasmuch as it has been dealt with during the last 12 months; secondly, as the hon. Member said, there cannot be for four months yet any exportation of Russian timer, and thirdly—[Interruption.] With great respect—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: In giving my Ruling, I have fully considered the question and I cannot allow the Motion to be put under Standing Order No. 10.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (SITUATION).

Mr. HACKING: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give to the House regarding the present situation in Spain?

Mr. DALTON: In December two revolts directed against the Government and the Monarchy in Spain broke out, and were suppressed. As a result, the Government introduced martial law and imposed a strict censorship. The latest reports from His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid indicate that the situation throughout the country is, at present,
quiet. General Berenguer has again formally stated that he intends to revert to the Constitution of 1876, and that the elections for the Senate and Chamber respectively are definitely fixed for the 1st and 15th of March.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SITUATION.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to the progress of events in China in so far as British lives or property have been affected?

Mr. DALTON: I am glad to say that no threat to British lives or property in China was reported during the Christmas Recess. One British subject (Father Tierney) is still in the hands of brigands, but the British authorities are making every effort to secure his release. Generally speaking, the position of the Nanking Government has been greatly strengthened. The rebellion in the North West provinces seems now to be definitely at an end. Complete harmony appears to exist between the President of the Republic and the Governor of Manchuria; and a determined effort is being made to suppress the outbreaks of organised banditry which unhappily occurred during 1930 at various points in the interior.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the interested Powers have conferred together with a view to using their good offices for a peaceful solution of the disturbances and civil war in China; and whether a proposal to give joint diplomatic and financial assistance to the constitutional Government in China has been considered?

Mr. DALTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. No proposal of the nature indicated in the second part of the question has been made to my right hon. Friend. As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, the general condition of China has greatly improved, and there has been no renewal of the civil war.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has this matter been before the League?

Mr. DALTON: I am glad to say I believe the time has passed when it would be reasonable to bring it before the League.

BRITISH INTERESTS.

Mr. CAMPBELL (for Mr. HANNON): 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to make a statement on the new Chinese tariff and how far additional duties are to be imposed; and what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government to safeguard the interests of British trade at Nanking?

Mr. GILLETT: The new Chinese tariff came into force on the 1st January. Import duties have been increased for most commodities but have been reduced for some goods, including certain types of machinery. The changes in duties effected by the new tariff do not conflict with the provisions of any Treaties in force between this country and China. His Majesty's Government are bringing details of the changes, as they become available, to the notice of the interests concerned in this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the present position in China as affecting British trade and commerce?

Mr. GILLETT: It would not be practicable to deal with this matter by question and answer. If my hon. and gallant Friend would let me know on what particular points he desires information I will endeavour to give it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. MANDER: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary-General of the League of Nations has commenced negotiations with the Government with a view to carrying into force the resolution passed by the eleventh assembly of the League of Nations in September, concerning the facilities to be granted to motor-vehicles travelling on League business?

Mr. DALTON: No such negotiations had been begun before the departure of my right hon. Friend to Geneva on the 14th of January last. But the present meeting of the Council of the League and of the Commission of Inquiry on
European Unity will, no doubt, afford an opportunity for the Acting Secretary-General to confer with representatives of the countries primarily concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCES.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is now in a position to state whether the Board of Admiralty have reached a decision regarding the award of marriage allowances to naval officers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of yesterday (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 20–21) to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not a fact that all this information has been before the Admiralty for a considerable time, a committee having been appointed in 1924, which was presided over by a distinguished admiral, and which reported in favour of the scheme?

Mr. AMMON: As I informed the hon. Member yesterday, in reply to a supplementary question, this matter is now before the Board of Admiralty, on which the officers are represented.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the Parliamentary Secretary in a position to state when we may expect a decision?

Mr. AMMON: No, Sir.

APPRENTICES, ROYAL DOCKYARD (TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what decision has been reached in respect of the scheme for improving technical instruction given to apprentices in the civil engineering department, Devonport Dockyard?

Mr. AMMON: A scheme to extend the facilities for technical instruction of apprentices in the civil engineering departments in the Royal dockyards is still at present under consideration. It is hoped that a decision may be reached in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

HIGHWAY CODE.

Mr. FREEMAN: 19.
asked the. Minister of Transport whether he has any report to make on the new highway code of rules for motorists and pedestrians?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): A draft of the Highway Code was circulated to the various authorities, associations and other bodies concerned in the middle of December and was given wide publicity in the Press. The observations and suggestions submitted from all quarters are being carefully considered and a conference, over which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry will preside, is being held to-morrow for the purpose of obtaining the views of those bodies on certain suggestions received.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when the code will come into effective operation and how he intends to define major and minor roads?

Mr. MORRISON: On the second point, I do not think that I ought to anticipate matters. The code cannot come into force until it has been confirmed by both Houses of Parliament. I hope to submit the code for approval within the next few weeks.

Mr. FREEMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any further intention of defining what signals pedestrians should give to motorists?

Mr. MORRISON: That point is under consideration.

DARTFORD-PURFLEET TUNNEL.

Mr. MILLS: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport how far the planning and drawings have progressed respecting the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel; and whether the work has been sanctioned for the pilot tunnel?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: It is hoped to invite tenders within the next few weeks for the construction of the pilot tunnel in connection with the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately, how many men are likely to be employed?

Mr. MORRISON: No, I cannot say.

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS, YORKSHIRE (CHAIRMAN).

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, seeing that he has appointed Mr. Joseph Farndale, C.B.E., ex-chief Constable of Bradford, to be chairman of the traffic commissioners for Yorkshire, he will state the amount per annum that Mr. Farndale will receive in pension for past services in the police force?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I understand that in accordance with the usual scale, Mr. Farndale will be entitled to a pension of two-thirds of his salary.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the exact amount?

Mr. MORRISON: The salary was £1,250, and therefore the pension will be in the region of £800 a year.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: Does the Minister of Transport not appreciate the foolishness of appointing a man in receipt of a pension of £800 a year to such a post?

TRAFFIC INSPECTORS AND EXAMINERS.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will see that in all the appointments of inspectors and examiners under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, they shall be persons who are not in receipt of pensions from positions previously held?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I will bear carefully in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion, with which I am generally in sympathy, but the predominant consideration must be the selection of the best qualified candidate in each case.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in appointing these traffic inspectors and examiners, the inadvisability of appointing men who are in receipt of pensions?

Mr. MORRISON: I have already informed my hon. Friend that I am in general sympathy with the point he raises, and it will be easier of application in those cases; but where it is a question of securing the services of the men whom I require and whose experience particularly fits them for the task I really am not going to deny the public service the advantages to be obtained from such appointments.

LONDON TRAFFIC.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to introduce a Bill for the co-ordination of the tube railways, omnibus, and tramways services of London?

Major NATHAN: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the present position as to the London traffic scheme?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Discussions are still proceeding with the various authorities and bodies concerned, but I am not yet in a position to announce a date for the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. LEWIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any serious hopes of introducing the Bill within the course of the present Session?

Mr. MORRISON: Certainly.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any recommendation from the London Traffic Advisory Committee with regard to the circulation of motor-coaches in London; and whether he will state both its nature and the decision thereon?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have received a recommendation from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee that in order to relieve congestion regulations should be made with the object of restricting the operation of motor-coaches within the central area of London, and have published draft regulations in the matter. Before any regulations are made I shall carefully consider any representations which may be received within the statutory period of 40 days after the publication of the draft regulations. This period expires on 28th January.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Has any such representation been received from outside sources so far?

Mr. MORRISON: I understand that representations have been received.

LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS (LIVER POOL STREET AND ILFORD).

Major NATHAN: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to take steps to secure the building of a tube railway from Liverpool Steet via Bethnal Green to Ilford and beyond?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am informed by the London and North Eastern Railway Company that they are not yet in a position to report any decision with regard to the construction of a tube railway from Liverpool Street to Ilford.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the Government give any assistance to this scheme?

Mr. MORRISON: I cannot say until the railway company make application.

Colonel ASHLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider it?

Mr. MORRISON: Certainly. We consider everything.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman really bringing any pressure to bear on this railway company to come to a prompt decision; and is he aware that people who have to travel from Ilford to Liverpool Street are impossibly crowded at the present moment?

Mr. MORRISON: I am quite aware of that fact.

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE SCHEME.

Major NATHAN: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the present position as to the Charing Cross Bridge scheme?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I understand that the committee set up to advise the London County Council are expected to report early in March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (TERRACE).

Mr. O. LEWIS: 30.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in connection with the proposal to raise the parapet of the Houses of Parliament, it is intended to alter the present level of the floor of the Terrace?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): It is not proposed to make any alteration in the general level of the Terrace. I hope to be able to arrange for drawings, showing the proposed arrangements, to be exhibited in the Tea Room in two or three weeks' time.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Mr. O. LEWIS: 31
asked the Post-master-General whether he has any statement to make to the House regarding the proposed subsidy for grand opera?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): Certain questions are under discussion with the British Broadcasting Corporation, the settlement of which will probably involve a new agreement between the Post Office and the Corporation. It is proposed that this new agreement should contain provision for a payment in respect of opera, the amount of which has already been announced. The payment will be contingent upon Parliament voting the necessary funds.

Mr. MARLEY: Will the Postmaster-General see that this syndicate, for equipment and other purposes, subjects itself to public tender?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I could not answer that question.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Gentleman give any estimate of the number of persons who will be given work under the Government's proposals?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: A considerable number will be saved from being unemployed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE DIRECTORY.

Mr. HACKING: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in the interests of quickness in finding a telephone number, he will, in future issues of the Telephone Directory, print the first four letters of the names of subscribers at the top of each column instead of three, as is the case at present?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I will consider the right hon. Member's suggestion, together with other possible methods of achieving the same object.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LAND RECLAMATION (DARTFORD).

Mr. MILLS: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the communication he has received from the joint councils of Erith, Crayford and Dart-
ford regarding the scheme for reclamation of the foreshore of the south bank of the River Thames from Woolwich to the proposed Dartford tunnel approach, the reclamation of the marshland in that area will be considered in the same scheme?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I have not received any communication on the matter referred to by my hon. Friend. If he will be good enough to furnish me with particulars regarding the suggested scheme of reclamation, I shall be glad to look into the matter forthwith.

RUSSIAN GRAIN (IMPORTS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture Whether in view of the fact that in November 40 per cent. of the wheat that came here was from Soviet Russia and some was sold down to 22s. a quarter, he will say what steps he is taking to counteract the effect on British agriculture of these sudden importations?

Dr. ADDISON: The cereal situation in this country is under examination, but I am not in a position at present to add anything to the reply on this subject given on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade on the 30th October to the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope).

Commander BELLAIRS: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the House the results of his consideration?

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot say at the moment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since this question was put on the Paper, the price of Russian wheat has further depreciated to 18s. 6d. a quarter; and what is going to be done for the British farmer?

Dr. ADDISON: I am well aware of the price of Russian wheat.

Sir F. HALL: Will you shut out Russian wheat?

Mr. HURD: Did not the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking that, as soon as the Imperial Conference
closed, we should have a definite statement of the Government's policy with regard to cereal agriculture?

Dr. ADDISON: The statement was that as soon as the Conference closed we should take the matter into our consideration.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Are not the Soviet Government and Arcos getting just as high a price as they can?

Commander BELLAIRS: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the decision of the Soviet Russian authorities to increase the exportable surplus of grain in 1931 from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent.; and what measures the Government intend to take to prevent dumping of this produce in the United Kingdom?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I do not know the source of the hon. and gallant Member's figures, but I am aware that the Soviet Government are hoping to be able to increase the exportable surplus of grain. With regard to the second part of the question I would refer to the answer which I gave on 3rd November to a question by the hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Sir G. Penny), a copy of which I am sending to the hon. and gallant Member.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this export can only be increased by starving Russian nationals?

Mr. GILLETT: No, Sir; I am not aware that that is so.

HON. MEMBERS: You ought to be!

Commander SOUTHBY: Are you taking any steps to find out?

Mr. WISE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement made by the hon. Member opposite is entirely untrue?—[Interruption.]

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: May we have an opportunity—[Interruption.] On a point of Order. An hon. Member has declared that the statement made by me is untrue. All that I ask is an opportunity later to prove that my statement was true. Can we have that opportunity?

Mr. SPEAKER: Captain Peter Macdonald.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHNEIDER TROPHY RACE.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he can now state whether the Schneider trophy race is to take place in England in 1931; if so, where is it to be held and on what date; and if it is to receive the support of His Majesty's Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): As recently announced, His Majesty's Government, after a full and careful review of all the relevant circumstances, have decided that there can be no departure from the policy promulgated in October, 1929. The answer to the third part of the question is, therefore, in the negative, and the first and second parts fall within the sphere of the Royal Aero Club.

Captain MACDONALD: In view of the fact that machines are already available, and of the manifest effects that the winning of this race has had upon British aircraft development, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to reconsider this matter?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The subject has been considered for some considerable time—very thoroughly considered—and the answer is a final answer.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Does the hon. Gentleman think it better to subsidise opera than to encourage British aircraft development?

Sir PHILIP SASSOON (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that without the Air Ministry organisation, and co-operation it is impossible to compete for the Schneider Cup, which this country has but to win once again to make it its own; whether the offer of the Royal Aero Club to relieve the Air Ministry and the taxpayer of all expense in the matter, providing the Air Ministry would be responsible for the organisation of the race as in the past, has been considered by the Government and what decision has been come to and the reasons therefor?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The view stated by the right hon. Gentleman in the first part of his question was put forward by the representatives of the Royal Aero Club in the discussions which took place last month. It was considered, together
with other relevant factors—such as the representations made by the club as to their inability to find the necessary funds for the competition—by His Majesty's Government before arriving at the decision which I have just announced. With regard to the second part of the question, an offer to attempt to raise the necessary funds by the end of the month was made to the Air Ministry for the first time yesterday. This offer has also been considered by the Government. As, however, their decision against official participation in the race was not taken on grounds of finance only, but also for reasons of policy and principle, this offer does not enable them to modify their decision in any way.

Sir P. SASSOON: Is the hon. Member aware of the very serious effect a withdrawal at this moment from this contest will have upon our air position throughout the world, and also of the repercussion it must have upon our industry in this country, which, largely by virtue of our air supremacy in this very contest in the past, has shown a growing export business?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Those questions have been thoroughly considered not only by the Cabinet but also by the Air Ministry in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Royal Aero Club. Those points have been quite in our mind, and the decision is as I have announced.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would my hon. Friend state briefly what are the reasons of policy, and is my hon. Friend aware that the question of policy is quite a new position and that in the past it has always been finance?

Mr. MONTAGUE: No, that is not correct. It has not always been finance. As long ago as October, 1929, and also in my Estimates speech, all those reasons were given. Questions of principle were involved. For instance, the consideration of whether it is desirable for the Government of the country to undertake responsibility for what was originally intended to be, and should be, a purely sporting contest.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If the Opposition want to see a good race, let them come to Scotland.

Mr. BOOTHBY: May I ask the Prime Minister as the head of the Government whether, in view of the new factor which has come to light and the offer made since yesterday, which surely alter the whole position, he would allow the matter to be reconsidered by the Cabinet, because, surely, the new offer puts the situation in a new light altogether?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the Governments of other countries are being responsible for, participation in this race, and why should this Government hold themselves above the Governments of other countries in this matter? Furthermore, is it not a fact that we have the machines available and that they are of no use for any other purpose?

Mr. SPEAKER: This matter seems to be developing into a Debate.

Sir P. SASSOON: In view of the unsatisfactory reply and the great importance of this matter to the country I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing it as a definite matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I cannot possibly accept such a Motion. It certainly does not come under Standing Order No. 10.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Cannot we have an answer from the Prime Minister?

Captain MACDONALD: Is there no means by which we can raise this question?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not my business to instruct Members as to when they can raise questions in this House.

Captain MACDONALD: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITIES (GRANTS).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of money has been placed at the disposal of the University Grants Committee for allocation to universities and
university colleges during each of the last 10 financial years?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The amounts placed at the disposal of the University Grants Committee for Universities and University Colleges in Great Britain were as follows:—

1921–2: £1,389,000.
1922–4: £1,169,000 per annum.
1924–5: £1,242,570.
1925–9: £1,550,000 per annum.
1930: £1,800,000 which will continue for four more years.

In addition, a special non-recurrent grant of £500,000 was placed at the Committee's disposal in 1921–2 to assist the Institutions to provide retrospective superannuation benefits for senior members of their staffs; and a special grant of £212,500 was made to London University direct in 1927 towards the cost of a site and accommodation.
The above figures exclude the sum of £111,000 voted for Irish Universities and Colleges in 1921, and the statutory annual grant of £30,000 to Scottish Universities, which has been paid each year, formerly from the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account and now as a charge on the Universities and Colleges Vote.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DEBT (COMMODITY VALUE).

Mr. WHITE: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how the commodity value of the National Debt in 1920, as measured by the Board of Trade index of wholesale prices, compared with its commodity value in 1924, in 1928, and at the present time?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member will find the National Debt figures in House of Commons Paper 1 of 1930, while the Board of Trade index, which is based on the wholesale prices of food and raw materials, is set out on page 274 of Command Paper 3737. He will, of course, realise that the substitution of other indices, measuring the
purchasing power of money from other points of view, would yield widely different results.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does not the date of 1920, on which the hon. Gentleman has given his answer, give a false picture of comparisons, in view of the fact that most of the National Debt was originally borrowed before December, 1917?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not concerned with that point. I am asked a question as to certain dates, and I have given the answer. Different dates would give entirely different results.

Oral Answers to Questions — DROP-FORGINGS INDUSTRY (WAGES).

Mr. MANDER: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the standard rates of wages for the drop-forgings industry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): The only standard rates embodied in collective agreements between employers' and workpeople's organisations for drop-forgers and stampers of which I am aware are 57s. per week for tool setters and 54s. to 58s. for stampers in the engineering and allied industries in the Birmingham, Wolverhampton and South Staffordshire area. A large proportion of the workpeople, however, are paid on piece rates, which vary according to the class of work and other conditions.

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the rates that he has mentioned are the general pay for the dropforgings industry?

Mr. LAWSON: Yes, as far as we know. The bon. Gentleman drew the attention of the Department to certain companies, and, as far as we can gather, those companies are paying the rates laid down in the agreements which I have mentioned.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we to understand that 37s. a week is paid for skilled labour in England?

HON. MEMBERS: Fifty-seven.

Mr. LAWSON: The figures are 57s. for tool setters and 54s. to 58s. for stampers.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES.

Mr. PALMER (for Mr. TILLETT): 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any variation exists in the diplomatic immunity and diplomatic privileges accorded to the different foreign nations by this country?

Mr. DALTON: As far as diplomatic immunity is concerned, all foreign diplomatic missions are treated alike. This statement also applies to diplomatic privileges, with the exception of exemption from rates, in regard to which the privileges granted are dependent on reciprocity, and of Customs facilities, the grant of which to members other than heads of missions is also dependent on reciprocity.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (ROAD SCHEMES).

Mr. CAMPBELL (for Mr. HANNON): 24.
asked the Minister of Transport the total amount now authorised by the Government for schemes for the relief of unemployment to be carried out under the auspices of his Department, and the latest available estimate of the total number of persons for whom employment has been found?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Schemes of improvement and new construction of Class I and Class II roads and bridges approved in detail or in principle from 31st August, 1929, to 17th January, 1931, amount approximately to £54,250,000. The total volume of employment which will be afforded directly and indirectly by these schemes may be estimated at 217,000 man-years.

Colonel ASHLEY: What proportion of the total sum is to be found by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. MORRISON: It will depend on the nature of the work and the particular circumstances. Without notice, I could not give an average figure.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Within what time does the right hon. Gentleman expect that some of these people will get employment?

Mr. MORRISON: They will proceed with all possible speed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY CHARGES.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport the minimum and maximum charges for light and power supplied in each area under the control of the Electricity Commissioners and the names of such areas?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am afraid I am not in a position to supply particulars of the charges made by each of the 660 or so authorised undertakers throughout the country which, as the hon. Member will be aware, are subject to alterations from time to time within the authorised maxima. As regards the London district, however, particulars of the various tariffs in operation are contained in the Annual Returns issued by the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it satisfactory that there should be such great varieties of prices throughout the country? Cannot something be done to bring them more into line?

Mr. MORRISON: I think that is so. The trouble is that there is such a large variety of undertakings, but in the conferences which I am holding on electricity supply I am encouraging some degree of standardisation of tariffs.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir K. WOOD: 42.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to ask the House to proceed to a Second Reading of the Trades Disputes Bill and Electoral Reform Bill, respectively?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Member to the statement of Business which I made on Thursday, the 18th December. As regards the second part, the Representation of the People Bill is now in the hands of Members, and due notice of the Second Reading will be given in the ordinary course when statements of Business are made.

Sir K. WOOD: With regard to the Representation of the People Bill, can the Prime Minister say whether the three
lost Clauses have been found, and whether they will be available to Members before the Second Reading of the Bill? There are three Clauses, apparently, omitted from the Bill. Whether they have been lost below the Gangway or otherwise, I should like to know whether they will be available to Members before the Second Reading of the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put such an important question as that on the Paper.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the Prime Minister state to the House the precise terms of the bargain that he has made with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)?

Mr. MANDER: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will make arrangements to take the Benefices (Exercise of Rights of Presentation) Measure, 1930, at 7.30, in order that there may be adequate time for discussion at a reasonable hour?

The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the very heavy programme before the House, I am afraid that I do not feel justified in adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. MANDER: Is not, the Prime Minister aware that there is a very widespread interest in this Measure; and will he not take steps to prevent the discussion on it taking place after Eleven o'Clock at night?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should very much like to do so, but I am afraid I shall have to take advantage of all the opportunities I have of getting through the business.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Could not the right hon. Gentleman fill in in this way some of the private Members' time that he has taken?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 275, Noes, 160.

Division No. 91.]
AYES.
[3.42 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mort, D. L.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Muff, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Ammon, Charles George
Harbord, A.
Naylor, T. E.


Angell, Sir Norman
Hardie, George D.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Arnott, John
Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Ayles, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palin, John Henry


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Haycock, A. W.
Paling, Wilfrid


Barr, James
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Palmer, E. T.


Batey, Joseph
Herriotts, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bellamy, Albert
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Perry, S. F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hoffman, P. C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hollins, A.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Benson, G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hore-Belisha, Lesile
Pole, Major D. G.


Blindell, James
Horrabin, J. F.
Potts, John S.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Price, M. P.


Bowen, J. W.
Isaacs, George
Pybus, Percy John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, Sir William
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brockway, A. Fenner
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bromfield, William
Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Raynes, W. R.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brooke, W.
Jones, Rt. Hon Lell (Camborne)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brothers, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ritson, J


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Romeril, H. G.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Rothschild, J. de


Burgess, F. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rowson, Guy


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cameron, A. G.
Kinley, J.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cape. Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Knight, Holford
Sanders, W. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George ([...]. Molton)
Sandham, E.


Chater, Daniel
Lang, Gordon
Sawyer, G. F.


Church, Major A. G.
Lathan, G.
Scott, James


Cluse, W. S.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Scurr, John


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Sexton, Sir James


Cove, William G.
Leach, W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cowan, D. M.
Lee, Frank (Derby. N.E.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shield, George William


Daggar, George
Lees, J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dallas, George
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, Fred W.
Shinwell, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Logan, David Gilbert
Simmons, C. J.


Dickson, T.
Longbottom, A. W.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Dukes, C.
Lowth, Thomas
Sinkinson, George


Duncan, Charles
Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.


Ede, James Chuter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Edmunds, J. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McElwee, A.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Egan, W. H.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Elmley, Viscount
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


England, Colonel A.
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Foot, Isaac
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snell, Harry


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Freeman, Peter
McShane, John James
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sorensen, R.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mansfield, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
March, S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gill, T. H.
Marcus, M.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gillett, George M.
Markham, S. F.
Strauss, G. R.


Glassey, A. E.
Marley, J.
Sullivan, J.


Gossling, A. G.
Marshall, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Gould, F.
Mathers, George
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maxton, James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Granville, E.
Messer, Fred
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gray, Milner
Middleton, G.
Thurtle, Ernest


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mills, J. E.
Tillett, Ben


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Montague, Frederick
Toole, Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morley, Ralph
Tout, W. J.


Grundy, Thomas W
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Townend, A. E.




Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Vaughan, D. J.
West, F. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Viant, S. P.
westwood, Joseph
Winterton, G. E.(Lelcester,Loughb'gh)


Walker, J.
White, H. G.
Wise, E. F.


Waliace, H. W.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Watkins, F. C.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)



Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Welsh, Jamas (Paisley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hayes.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ferguson, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Fermoy, Lord
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Albery, Irving James
Fleiden, E. B.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wlifrid W.
Flson, F. G. Clavering
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Atkinson, C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Balille-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Rodd. Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Balniel, Lord
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Salmon, Major I.


Beaumont, M. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Grace, John
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Savery, S. S.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Simms, Major-General J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Skelton, A. N.


Boyce, Leslie
Hanbury, C.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Butler, R. A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smithers, Waldron


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Somerset, Thomas


Campbell, E. T.
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Carver, Major W. H.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Steel-Maltland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Christie, J. A.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Train, J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colville, Major D. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Maltland. A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. sir A. Lambert


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Cranborne, Viscount
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wells, Sydney R.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Muirhead, A. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Womersley, W. J.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Elliot, Major Walter E.
Peaks, Capt. Osbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Penny, Sir George
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir


Everard, W. Lindsay
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Frederick Thomson.


Falie, Sir Bertram G.
Purbrick, R.

LAW OF PROPERTY ACT (1925) AMENDMENT.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the provisions of the Law of Property Act, 1925, relating to leases for lives.
I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes. Under Section 149 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, the
object of which was to abolish leases for lives, it is provided that where a lease has been granted for lives and one of the persons in whose name the lease has been granted dies, it should be converted into a lease of 90 years. The House is no doubt aware that it has been the custom in many parts of the country to grant leases on the lives of three or more people, very often people having no par-
ticular interest in the property, and in point of fact it is a matter of speculation as to whether a lease so granted will not last longer than one for the normal period of 99 years. It is often possible on the death of one of these persons to put in a new life. This was abolished by the Law of Property Act, 1925, but when this particular Section was drafted it was overlooked that it is customary in some parts of the country to grant agricultural leases for a much shorter period than the time prescribed in the Section.
Very often these leases are granted for terms of 14 years or "to terminate on the death of the lessee." It is understood that the effect of Section 149 of the Law of 1925 in the case of such an agricultural lease of 14 years is to convert that lease into one of 90 years, if the lessee dies before the expiration of the term of the lease. The reason why the provision "to terminate on the death of the lessee" is frequently put into agricultural leases is that on the death of the farmer who has leased the farm his capital will be divided amongst his family, and very often none of the children has sufficient capital to run the farm; that is the reason why for mutual convenience this particular provision has been put into such leases. It was never the intention of the Legislature that leases of that kind which terminate on the death of the lessee should become converted into a lease of 90 years. The object of the Bill is to amend that anomaly, and I hope the House will allow the Bill to go forward so that the matter may be discussed in the appropriate manner.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Bourne, Sir George Courthope, Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Sir Douglas Newton, and Captain Henderson.

LAW OF PROPERTY ACT (1925) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the provisions of the Law of Property Act, 1925, relating to leases for lives," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 17th February, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.

As amended, further considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Short title, construction, extent, saving and commencement.)

Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out from the word "shall" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
not come into operation until an Act has been passed authorising expenditure out of public funds, upon such conditions as are necessary to meet the cost to be incurred by the managers of non-provided schools in meeting the requirements of the provisions of this Act, but that in no event shall this Act come into operation earlier than the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.
It is with a feeling of grave responsibility that I move this Amendment, which is in the name of myself and 41 other hon. Members who sit on this side of the House. It is a very curious position to a man who has been a member of a party for a very long number of years, who has taken part in the work of that party and has rejoiced that it has been able to attain the position to-day of being His Majesty's Government, to have to differ from the Government to the extent of moving an Amendment against one of their own Bills. But there are times and occasions when all party ties have to go in obedience to what one considers to be a higher claim. Those who have been responsible for putting down this Amendment have been accused in certain quarters of desiring to wreck the Bill; it has been described as a wrecking Amendment. If hon. Members will look at it they will find that it is not a wrecking Amendment and is not designed to destroy the Bill, but that it is in fact only possible to implement the Bill in its administration if an Amendment similar to this is carried.
The Bill will throw a heavy financial burden on the whole of the educational authorities of the country. We have a dual system of education, and I find from the last statistics of the Board of Education in 1929 that there are 9,400 schools of local education authorities with an average roll of 3,669,175; there
4.0 p.m.
are 9,767 Church of England schools, with an average roll of 1,466,444; there are 1,164 Catholic schools with an average roll of 368,386; 12 Jewish schools with an average roll of 5,530; and 304 schools of other denominations with an average roll of 64,539. If I were to assume for a moment that the managers of the schools of the other denominational bodies were to surrender their schools to the local educational authorities, even then there are 1,840,360 children who are being educated in non-provided schools, and who receive no financial assistance at all under the provisions of this Bill. The Government have recognised that the local education authorities are not in a position to face the full financial burden. Despite the fact that the local education authorities have at their back the rate fund, the Government have put forward to them that they will increase the grant from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. I, therefore, suggest that, in all equity, the supporters of the non-provided schools could urge that, in justice to them, they should receive precisely the same treatment as has been given to the provided schools, but it has been said that there can be no further grants of public money unless there is a further extension of public control.
We come to the question of what really public control means. It is an excellent catch-phrase. It can mean a great many things in many directions. There may be, probably, 615 interpretations in this House. It must not be thought that, even in regard to education, for all money which is given to educational establishments public control of any kind or description is insisted upon. Let me give a few instances. Grants are made by the Board of Education to Free Church, Anglican and Catholic training colleges without any public representatives being on their governing bodies. The money is given for their expenditure without further inquiries. The University Grants Committee makes a grant of over £500,000 a year to the University of London without any form of public control. So that when we go into this matter of public control, we find that it really boils itself down to the question as to what is to be the method of the appointment of teachers.
The position of the Catholics in this matter is perfectly plain and above board. Perhaps members of the Anglican community this afternoon will forgive me if I do not refer to them specifically, but confine myself to my own community. Others no doubt will be able to speak with more authority for the Anglican community. Therefore, the Catholic position is, that the method of the appointment of teachers is merely a matter of arrangement, and all that we desire is a guarantee that in Catholic schools there shall be Catholic teachers. We ask nothing further than that. We have never asked anything further than that, because, whether we are right or whether we are wrong, we have a definite philosophy of life, and we think it is necessary that our children should know of that philosophy of life in their early years when attending public schools, and we feel that it can only be imparted to them by Catholic teachers. Therefore, given this extension of public control, it is, obviously, merely a matter of discussion as to how far we should or should not alter the present method of the appointment of teachers in non-provided schools.
I would like, for a moment, to make a digression. I want to say that there is no question at issue at the present moment of any disturbance of the settlement of 1902. The settlement of 1902 remains on the Statute Book. It is simply a matter of meeting the obligations which are being thrown on the managers of non-provided schools by reason of the reorganisation in the Hadow Report and the raising of the school age. Some time in the future—the time is not now—the 1902 settlement will have to be taken into consideration, but that is not to-day. So that there shall be no misunderstanding, I desire to put forward what is our ultimate Catholic ideal in regard to public education in this country. I quote the words of his Grace the Archbishop of Birmingham, who summed it up, I think, better than it has been put by any member of my community:
In a really democratic nation there should be no distinction between provided and non-provided schools—all schools should be provided. For the people who demand religious education, religious schools should be provided; for those who do not demand
it, schools with no tests for teachers should be provided. But any really sound national system should provide schools for all its people, whatever be their religion. If any denomination can point to the requisite number of its children in a given area whose parents demand religious education for them, the State should provide a school where now it gives us permission to build one ourselves.
We are not discussing that, to-day. We are discussing only the question as to how we are to meet the present emergency. When the President of the Board of Education introduced his Bill of last year, we were unable to accept the proposals which were put forward in that Measure in regard to the non-provided schools. We put down certain Amendments which would have made it less objectionable, but would not have made it in any way acceptable. The President was unable to see his way to accept those Amendments. Later on, the Government, not altogether because of the religious question being raised, but for a variety of reasons, did not proceed with the Bill. We were then in the position of being able to enter into conversations, if it were the intention of the Government to proceed with legislation again. In company with some other Members of this House I had an inter view with the President. We discussed various questions in connection with this subject, and there was one significant phrase which was used by the President on that occasion which has always stayed in my mind, and that was, that in the future he would be prepared to negotiate only through Members of the House of Commons.
We came to this new Session of Parliament. The Bill was introduced without any reference at all to any provisions for non-provided schools. It will be within the recollection of the House that I supported the Second Reading, but made an appeal for negotiations on this particular question. We, that is six Members of this House, representing varying points of view on this matter entered into conversations with the President of the Board of Education. I venture to suggest that those conversations were conducted in a very amicable, a conciliatory spirit, and, as far as those six Members and the President were concerned—and I think the six were fairly representative of the community—we came to a general agreement. That general agreement took the direction, if
it had been implemented in legislation, of an enabling nature, which would have enabled an agreement to be made between local education authorities and managers in regard to grants being made to non-provided schools and in regard to the method of appointing the teachers by the local education authorities. When that agreement was reached, I thought we should then be in a position to have that implemented in legislation, but the President of the Board of Education considered it necessary to go further, and on the 13th and 14th of this month a conference of all the interests was held. We considered and put forward to the President of the Board of Education the proposals which were agreed to by the six Members of this House.

Mr. FOOT: Five.

Mr. SCURR: Those proposals were considered by that conference. Various amendments were made, but the conference came to no decision. Everyone who took part in that conference will know that, as far as I and those on whose behalf I am speaking this afternoon were concerned, we were in every sense conciliatory and desirous of bringing about a peaceful settlement in order to clear away the difficulties. To-day we are in the position that we have this Bill nearly finishing its career in the Report stage. We have had no statement yet made as to the intentions of the Government to provide any financial assistance for non-provided schools. As far as we are concerned, it means providing places for between 30,000 and 33,000 children. That will mean a cost of £1,000,000, and I say, quite frankly, that at the present time my community cannot possibly raise that money. In order that this Bill should be effective if it is passed into law, £1,000,000 has to be obtained from a community which is not a rich community, because the mass of the members of the Catholic Church in this country belong to the poorer classes in the community who have made many sacrifices on behalf of their schools.
I am, therefore, in this position this afternoon, that I cannot any longer wait for the result of conferences. Conference after conference has been held. General understandings seem to have been come to, and nothing has been done. I, therefore, can only take the action
which is open to me, to try to make it certain that something shall be done to give the House of Commons the opportunity of expressing its opinion. I suggest to His Majesty's Government that if they left this question to a free vote of this House, they would find that there is an overwhelming opinion in favour of this proposal. I have tried throughout the whole of these negotiations—and it is within the recollection, I think, of every Member—to cast no aspersions of any kind or description on the views, religious or political, of other people in connection with this matter. I have respected the views of my Free Church friends and of my Anglican friends, but I would be untrue to the faith to which I belong if I did not stand here this afternoon pleading, nay, not pleading, but demanding from the British House of Commons Justice for the community to which I belong. That is why I say that if we had a free vote, we should find what the view of this House was.
I am not concerned with political issues at all. I am concerned with the children. Some say that we are not concerned with the children. We are, because we know that if the Bill passes without giving financial assistance to non-provided schools, a large number of children will suffer by reason of the deficiencies which must result. I therefore move my Amendment in the strong hope that it will be passed, in order that we may be assured that when the raising of the school age comes to be the law of the land there shall be justice done to the non-provided schools of the country.

Mr. LEACH: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so as a warm and enthusiastic supporter of the Bill. I have every desire to see the Bill placed on the Statute Book, and as evidence of that desire I may state that I have missed no single Division during the progress of the Bill. The need for some action of the kind suggested in the Amendment has for many years been clear to local education authorities. Twenty-eight years ago the House of Commons passed an Act of Parliament which maintained the dual system. During that period of 28 years, no one in this House and no education administrator has sought by any means to alter that dual plan. It has been
realised that the plan has succeeded in establishing an education system that has lifted our education to a pitch of excellence of which the last generation never dreamt.
The Act stands to the credit of the late Lord Balfour, and it amazed me, when tributes were being paid to that great statesman's memory, to notice how little attention was concentrated on that great achievement of his life. I would go so far as to say that that Act is probably the greatest Act of Parliament that was ever placed on the Statute Book. It provided that, whatever quality of education was given in publicly-owned schools, the same quality of education should be given in the non-provided schools. All forms of education, particularly the higher forms, were taken out of the desperate position in which previously they had been. For 28 years the Act has been in operation, and during that time there has come to light a weakness which probably its author never contemplated. While inside the law you can provide money to build or help to build a non-provided school if it is for secondary or technical education or for training or university purposes, you cannot do that for a non-provided elementary school. The financial responsibility for rebuilding non-provided elementary schools is on people who have borne their full share of building and rebuilding all the provided schools as well.
I belong to no denomination, but I feel that there is something unfair in that condition of affairs. The 1902 Act imposed obligations upon us as well as upon the managers of non-provided schools, and if I read the duty aright we have the obligation to make the dual system work. If we take responsibility for the child in the non-provided school, we must not allow his education rights to fall behind those of the child in the provided schools. But they are falling behind. This Bill in its present shape will cause those education rights of the scholar in the non-provided school to fall even further behind. The burden imposed upon managers of non-provided schools by the Act of 1902 may have been reasonable and may have been possible to be borne, but to-day they are no longer reasonable and no longer possible to be borne.
The lifting of our standards of education has added enormously to the burden of those managers. By reducing the size of classes, by increasing the air space per child, by improving the general hygienic conditions of all schools immeasurably, we have added to the burden of the non-provided schools. The managers are now confronted by burdens which they cannot reasonably be expected to carry. This Bill makes new demands on the managers of non-provided schools, and it contains no provision to help them to carry out those new demands. The child in the non-provided school is going to fall still further behind in the fulfilment of his education rights. I appeal to the President of the Board of Education to make some pronouncement which will enable us to see that it is his clear intention to deal with the problem raised by the Amendment. If he can do that, if he can give some assurance that these new and additional burdens that are to be placed on non-provided schools shall be met reasonably from public funds, I think it would be possible even at this stage to secure a withdrawal of the Amendment. I make this appeal to try right hon. Friend to save the Bill, to make its passage certain and to make it a fair measure, by giving us some concessions in this matter.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): In the great reorganisation of education which is going on and which has been going on for the last year or two everyone in every part of the House wants the voluntary schools to play their part. There are many of us, and I am classed as one, who regret that we have the dual system with us. But the dual system is there, and we have no right—so far I agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken—if we can avoid it, to handicap the children in the voluntary schools because the system is one which is not altogether satisfactory. Of course it is easy to exaggerate the evil of not being able to do anything. If there is no reorganisation in which the voluntary schools are able generally to participate, it does not mean that the children will not get education, it does not mean that they will not be able to enjoy many of the benefits of this Bill, but it does mean that they would not enjoy them to the
full. Compared with the children in many of the districts where there are only provided schools, they would be handicapped. I say again that there can be no Member of this House who could fail to wish that the children in the voluntary schools should be able to get the same facilities as those in the provided schools.
But I want to point out that this question does not originate with this Bill. If the school age were not raised at all, the question would be nearly as important and nearly as acute. If the Noble Lord who was President of the Board of Education in the last Government, had remained in his position and had simply continued the reorganisation of education as I have been continuing it, and there had been no question of raising the school age, it still would have been a disadvantage for the children in the voluntary schools, where they could not get effective reorganisation. That is to say, the question is not really part of this Bill. It is quite true that the problem is to some extent accentuated, but there is no reason for making this Bill bear a responsibility which does not belong to it. We have no right to try to hold up this Bill, to do anything to hold it up, in order to force the solution of a problem which does not properly belong to it alone.
The next consideration is this, and it is even more important: Would this Amendment be the best way to advance a solution? On the contrary I am absolutely convinced that it would be fatal to the hopes of any sort of agreement, because if the Amendment were passed it would be an invitation to obdurate religious prejudice to hold out so as to prevent a settlement. The national anxiety to benefit the children by giving them an extra year of schooling might be used as a means of preventing a solution that was not agreeable to a single important religious section. We have no right to make the fortunes of the children wait on the settlement of a religious controversy.
I want to deal with the situation as we find it. Everyone knows that for months I have been doing my best to obtain a settlement—doing my utmost to reach an understanding acceptable to all the principal interests. Last week I had a conference with the representatives of the
local education authorities and the teachers and the three great religious bodies, the Church of England, the Free Churches and the Catholics. I am sorry not to be able to announce that we came to a complete agreement, but I am bound to say that what impressed myself and my colleagues who were there more than anything else was the amount of goodwill all round and the desire for conciliatory concessions. In fact, it appears to me to be a not unimportant thing in itself that the leading authorities and divines of all the great churches should have come round one table and tried to accommodate age-long differences. I doubt if there is any precedent for that in our history.
There was a wide measure of agreement among most of the interests present. The representatives of the local authorities, of the teachers, of the Church of England, of the Catholics, thought that they could, as speaking in a general way for those whom they represented, say that the proposals put forward and discussed and amended would in all probability be acceptable to those for whom they thought they could speak. The Free Church representatives, however, remained dissatisfied. What, in effect, I am asked by my hon. Friends is that the Government should at once bind itself to legislate. I can conceive no step more foolish than to try to force on any large section of the country what it, at the present moment, regards, perhaps not rightly, as an unacceptable solution. The attitude of the Government is, and has been all along, that it would be prepared to legislate for any settlement which had general agreement behind it. Nobody can say that there is general agreement yet, but I say with confidence that there is no reason to assume that agreement is unlikely. I ask the House to recollect the events of the last few months, to throw their minds back to the summer when the Government made a proposal for settling this question for which I at least had found partial approval. But when it was brought up in the House there was found to be extreme hostility on the part of a large section of the Catholic community. That was what, chiefly, at any rate, made it difficult to proceed.
I ask the House to notice this. The Catholics were at that time very hostile
to those proposals. Some modifications of those proposals were made, but the proposals which the Catholics now support are not, in principle, different. I agree that there are some differences, but the Catholic community is very anxious now that those proposals should come into operation. Now you have the Free Churchmen taking up the same attitude. I say there is no more reason why the Free Churchmen, perhaps after some modification in these proposals and thinking them over and understanding them fully and understanding their bearing—why, at any rate, a very substantial part of the community of the Free Churchmen of this country should not change their minds with regard to them, just as the Catholics changed their minds with regard to them. I want the House to realise that you cannot hustle this kind of settlement, and the worst thing that we can do is to assume that Nonconformist opinion cannot be amenable to reason, and persuasion and accommodation, as Catholic opinion has been, in the course of a few months. I am pretty certain that the proposals which the conference worked out, and which will come to be discussed, if I have my way, very publicly in the course of the next few weeks, are, in some respects, better for the claims of popular control even than those which we put in our Bill in the summer. I think they certainly are, for instance the particular provision, which the Church of England is ready to agree to, guaranteeing undenominational teaching in the single school areas.
I do not believe, if time is given to them to consider, that the Free Churches are going to find it impossible to come to an accommodation. The Free Churches of this country have always been devoted to the cause of education, and, when they realise that many children cannot get the full advantage of reorganised education, without in some way dealing with the large number of the voluntary schools, I believe that they will be ready to make concessions sooner than see the children handicapped. I say to the House, as I have said before, that no interest in this matter can hold out and can afford to hold out for a settlement which is ideal to them. It is impossible. We all know that, but I am convinced that what is most essential in the demands of all can be reconciled.
To get a settlement we must have some obvious and substantial concession to popular control in return for further grants to voluntary schools. Otherwise, you cannot possibly reconcile the local authorities, the teachers and Nonconformity to it. We have sought that, in making the teachers, in schools where these grants are given, public servants from this time forth. Let no one say that that is not a concession on the part of the Catholics and the Church of England. It is a concession as well as a very great gain for those of us who want to see real public control in our schools. To get a settlement we must also be able to guarantee the Church of England the teaching of their children in their own dogmas, because they now get it in their voluntary schools. They are in possession. In order to get a settlement, you must recognise the insistence of the Catholics on having Catholic teachers for their children. Are these things irreconcilable? I say they are not. I say, quite certainly, that we can get these things, that we can get a national agreement and that it is a poor thing if we are unable to get a national agreement so as to reconcile these demands.
Therefore, I intend to persist in finding an agreement. I have already, even since the meetings last Tuesday and Wednesday, been engaged on it, and I may, if necessary, have to call the conference together again. But I say that it will be a national disgrace if we are unable to reach a settlement. I do not believe that any great religious interest would dare to be finally and obviously responsible for refusing to enable a great many thousands of children to have the full measure of advanced education which our wider conceptions of education now make us want to be general. I think it is quite clear, however, that no Government can force through this change in face of the united opposition of any one great religious interest. That would be true of the Catholics and that would be true of the Free Churchmen. But a general agreement is, I believe, obtainable. The Government abides by their promise to legislate if agreement can be obtained, and I do not necessarily mean by agreement the complete reconciliation of all dissident minorities, but a general readiness in all parts of the religious communities of the country to come to a settlement to assist the volun-
tary schools in return for a substantial advance in public control. The moment I can get such a general agreement as that, I shall put up to my colleagues in the Cabinet concrete legislative proposals, and I think there is no doubt that the Labour party is bound by its natural desires and by its engagements to give effect to it if we can obtain any settlement at all.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The House I am sure has heard with very great regret from the Minister that the conference which met last week on this important matter has failed to reach agreement. I am not sure that it is not rather a pity that the Minister finds himself forced to go on with this Bill without a further effort to reach harmony among the interests affected. I propose to offer a few observations in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) to whose eloquence and sincerity I should like to pay a tribute. I cannot hope to compete with him in the cogency with which he put the case for the voluntary schools, but I will do my best to keep the matter on a non-contentious plane, and to rely, as far as I can, on facts and on inferences from facts to support the case which he has made and with which I associate myself. The House knows that what is at the bottom of the question is mainly finance. The House knows that, for many years, these voluntary schools have been forced into an impossible position and that this Bill is the culminating point in the difficulties with which these schools have been for many years faced.
Hon. Members know that since the War the cost of education, local and national, has increased threefold, but the resources of the non-provided schools have not increased threefold. To keep a pupil in an elementary school costs, I think, £13 as against £4 odd before the War, and the hon. Member for Mile End has given the House figures showing the increased burden which will be laid upon the Catholic community if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. He has given a figure of £1,000,000, and, from the publication of the Education Department which he read out, hon. Members will see that there are nine times as many Church of England schools as Catholic schools, and it is not unreason-
able to infer that the expenditure which this Bill lays on the Church of England schools will run into, not £1,000,000, but many millions. In spite of these immense efforts that have been made, I imagine, in almost every constituency in the country, I doubt if any Member of this House has not in his constituency some parish where poor people have collected £100 or more to support their parish schools.
In spite of that, what recognition does the Bill as it stands give us? We are not discussing any future arrangements which may or may not happen. This is a Bill that affects voluntary schools now, and as the Bill stands it is not unfair to say that there is something in the allegation that I have read that the Government, not daring to proceed against these schools by a frontal attack, have had to proceed by sapping and mining, that they would incur odium if they were to attack these schools deliberately, and that a financial blockade is better than a pitched battle. I doubt if that can be so—I cannot believe it—but the allegation has been made, and I think it fair to say that the President of the Board of Education himself repudiated it last May, when he said:
It is no use expecting voluntary schools to disappear, or that any Parliament will be found to extinguish them or purchase them out of existence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1930; col. 1526, Vol. 239.]
My hon. Friends below me may not see eye to eye with my friends and me; they may not like this dual system, but they are practical people, and they know very well that it is impracticable to extinguish the voluntary schools of this country. On the lowest estimate, £33,000,000 would be required to compensate the Church for relinquishing these schools, and to extinguish them would mean building thousands of schools for thousands of children. The right hon. Gentleman put this dilemma to the House last May:
We must in some way enable the voluntary schools to be reconditioned in a good many cases or in many parts of the country thousands of children will be left without the proper chance which we are trying to give to all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1930; col. 1526, Vol. 239.]
The hon. Member for Mile End has given official figures showing the number of children who will be left out of this Bill.
I do not know if the President of the Board of Education thinks that is an exaggeration, but as there are nearly 2,000,000 children in the voluntary schools, so far as this Bill is concerned, those children are left out of account, because no provision is made for the accommodation which those children, as they become of the school age affected, will require.
The Bill in this condition really cannot and ought not to be put on the Statute Book. It is a mutilated Bill, a stunted Bill, a Bill which can scarcely resist the charge of meanness, and anyone looking at this Bill for the first time would scarcely think it possible that a Bill purporting to deal with the education of 5,500,000 children of Great Britain, to provide accommodation for them, and to expend millions of State money on capital expenditure annually, could ignore and leave out of account two-fifths of those children, and could at the same time impose on the parents of those children the duty, not merely of making provision for their own children, but of providing out of rates and taxes for the 3,000,000 children of more fortunate parents. The President said just now that we must all take less than our ideal, for the sake of the children. I do not know what his ideal is, I do not know how much less than his ideal he is prepared to take, but I know that as far as this Bill is concerned, the voluntary schools take so much less than their ideal that they take nothing whatever.
I come to the question of the agreement. Is not the position this, that even if an agreement had been concluded, the case for this Amendment would have been extremely strong? The Minister himself, if he had been able to come, as we all wish he could have done, and given us the terms of an agreement, could scarcely have resisted this Amendment. It would have been a safeguard for the voluntary schools, and in due course he would have implemented it in a Statute. I thought, when he introduced the Bill, and I think now, that it was a mistake that he did not endeavour to put the settlement in the Bill. But if no agreement has been arrived at, surely the case for this Amendment is unanswerable. If no agreement has been reached, and the Minister cannot guaran-
tee agreement, what is the position of these schools? In 18 months' time, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, and we cannot guarantee agreement—and we may not get one—the voluntary schools are then faced with an Act of Parliament which they cannot resist.
The Minister put some objections on the Committee stage and said that we have no right to arrest the general progress of the country for a limited though important number of children. Could that not be put the other way as well? Have we a right to imperil the educational future of a limited though important number of children? He said just, now that the problem does not belong to the Bill. Why did it belong to the Bill last May? Surely, if it had been possible to get an agreement, the right hon. Gentleman would have taken good care to put it in the Bill, and he would have vastly improved it and made this Amendment unnecessary. He said:
Irreconcilable factors exist, and if encouraged in believing that they can hold up national advance of education they may become more and not less irreconcilable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1930; col. 2140, Vol. 245.]
He said that last time, and he has repeated it to-day, but is it not the duty of this House to decide whether interests are asking more than they can properly claim, whether they are irreconcilable, whether their claims are unanswerable or not? Is it to go forth that Amendments can be refused or rejected because of the handle they may give to irreconcilable opponents? I cannot believe that that would be treated as an excuse for what is, admittedly in this case, had legislation. He also said:
We shall put it in the power of any party or any section of people by obstinacy and by the exorbitance of their demands to make the raising of the school age inoperative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1930; col. 2141, Vol. 245.]
Again it is for this House to decide whether a demand is exorbitant or not, and the House would surely not delegate its decisions to factions outside and wait until the Minister had decided that they were no longer exorbitant. The Minister may say, "Let this Bill go through, because I pledge the Government to introduce a Measure for voluntary schools, though there is no agreement at the moment." There again I suggest
that to do so would be to adopt the principle of very faulty legislation. It would come to this, that bad Bills should be passed because the Minister undertakes to make them better. This House does not speculate upon what may happen in the future, and it cannot pass defective legislation such as this admittedly is on the strength of Ministerial assurances that at some time in the future they will be remedied. If the Amendment is refused, surely the suspicion will be created that the Minister got no agreement and expects to get no agreement. If he expected it, what objection in reason is there to passing the Amendment? It does not commit him to any particular terms of settlement.
I appeal to my hon. Friends on the Liberal benches, who are not present in very large numbers, because this Amendment as it stands commits them in no way to any set terms of agreement whatever, but it enables them to join with us and to protect the voluntary schools from suffering a fate which I do not think anyone wishes them to suffer. It provides that safeguard which would have enabled the negotiations to go on in a calmer and more fruitful spirit. The Liberal party usually plume themselves on their tenderness towards minorities, and here is the case of a great minority of school children who may look to them for tenderness such as they have shown in the past.
We should be taking an immense risk had we not supported this Amendment. We should have been gambling with the future of these schools. I feel the hon. Member for Mile End must have said to himself, as I said to myself, "Have we any right, we who are in some way the spokesmen for the voluntary schools, to let this Bill go through without this Amendment, to rely upon some assurance that something will happen in the future?" I think he must have said to himself, as I said to myself, "I have no right to do it; I have no right to gamble with such interests." For that reason, I trust that other hon. Members in the House will take the same view as we do, and support us in endeavouring to put this Amendment on the Statute Book.

Mr. FOOT: Reference has been made by the last speaker to the fact that there are not many of my colleagues in the
House at the moment. Sometimes business meetings are held, and one is being held just at this time. It is not that my colleagues are not within the precincts of the Chamber, but their absence must be a disadvantage to me, because I have no doubt that in putting forward my case I might have had the encouragement that comes from one's colleagues in a few applauding responses, whereas now I have to speak in a House where my friends are not very many, and I have to rely, therefore, upon the assurance of my cause and the strength of my case.
I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is on the Front Bench opposite. I have lately had the opportunity of seeing him at close grips with other questions, and for the last two or three months I know he has been doing his best to solve a problem that goes back for many hundreds of years, the problem that we call the Hindu-Moslem problem in India; and though he has just completed that work it must be strange to him to come back to this House and find that we are confronted with another historical problem, one also that goes back with its roots deep into history.
When I had the opportunity of speaking in this House, after midnight when the Bill was last before us, I suggested that we ought to be able to listen with some sympathy in this matter to the presentment by the other man of his point of view, because the likelihood is that if I had been born a Roman Catholic in Liverpool or Ireland, I should have been associated with the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) in supporting this Amendment, and if he had been born a Methodist and a Nonconformist in the West Country, he would probably have been in my place opposing the Amendment.
I want to make a reference, first of all, to the conversations mentioned by the hon. Member, whom I congratulate upon the tone of his speech in presenting his case to the House. I was asked by the Minister to join in those conversations that took place just before the House rose. I was reluctant so to do, as he will remember, but I did so because a colleague of mine was not able to carry on those conversations at that time. Further, I was a member of the Round Table Conference on India and had very little time to spare from that work. I
5.0 p.m.
am bound to demur to any statement that an agreement was arrived at. Upon that I have the authority of my Liberal colleague, and I have taken the opportunity of consulting one of the members of the party opposite. I did agree before the last meeting in December, when I left my colleague behind at the meeting which was held in the Minister's house, that certain words could be put before the respective interests as a basis of discussion, but I categorically stated that I could not commit myself to them, nor was I authorised to commit anyone else. I merely thought that they represented a proper basis for discussion. That was the extent to which I was entitled to go, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End will remember that even then I demurred to some parts of the memorandum, for I thought that in some parts there were some disabilities on the people with whom I am associated that were not adequately met. I agreed that the words were a basis for discussion, and I agreed that every attempt should be made to arrive at a settlement between the several interests.
I refuse to look at this matter simply as a Nonconformist, for I remember the discussions that took place following the Act of 1902. I have been surprised to hear that Act lauded on that side of the House. I never expected to hear that Measure praised in such adulatory and unreserved terms by one of the members of the party opposite. When that Act was passed, it was opposed not merely by Nonconformist opinion in this House, but by a great deal of opinion that would not be associated with any one of the churches. It was opposed on public grounds. I know many people in this country who are not associated directly with any of the churches who condemned that so-called settlement of 1902, and who joined in the agitation that led to the Bill of 1906, which was brought into this House by Mr. Birrell. I sat in the Gallery on the Third Reading of that Bill, when Mr. Birrell commended it to the House. A newly-elected Parliament, after this subject had been one of the main questions before the electorate, spent the main part of the first Session in dealing with the disabilities that were raised in the Act of 1902.By a majority of over 100, in which some of the Ministers now on the
Front Bench took their part, and in which every Labour representative in the House at that time took his part, a Bill was passed which sought to set aside the disabilities of the 1902 settlement. That Bill would have become the law of the land were it not for the action of another place. That is why I was rather surprised to hear to-day the praise of the Act of 1902 from those who are now associated with the party opposite.
That Act inflicted disabilities upon this country, and it is just that we should recognise what they were. The general system is this, as far as I can see it. We are a community in which there are very many churches and many creeds. There are only two solutions that strictly are logical. One is to say that we will have a secular system of education. That was the system which was supported by great men in our history, men like Dr. Dale and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in Birmingham. In the earlier days they were the champions of the secular system. Under that system the schools were for education, and it was regarded as the first duty of parents to impart religious teaching to their children. The parent who leaves this to the minister or the priest or the bishop has neglected the first principle of parenthood. That secular solution is one which is not to be lightly brushed aside. Further, the parent, if he is interested in the education of his child, will help to give that education himself, and no child is likely to learn more in the church than it can learn from its own father or mother. Thomas Carlyle in his later days said that the memory that remained with him was the memory of his father at prayer. It is a responsibility of the father to see that the child is brought into touch with such religious institutions as can give the child the culture of religious teaching. The secular system may be the solution, and I think that it is the solution to which we may be driven.
The other solution is one to which we have had reference made to-day, and which apparently has the favour and approval of the Archbishop of Birmingham, who was quoted with such approval by the hon. Member for Mile End. I have never heard the passage before, and I tried to take the words down as they were quoted by the hon. Member. The Archbishop, we are informed, said that
in really democratic countries no distinction should be made between provided or non-provided schools, and any denomination should be able to have them. That means that in the villages of Cornwall or of Wales, where the Methodists are in the majority, you are to have a demand for a school wherever there is the required number of children. The Methodists had many of these schools in the earlier years, but when the national settlement was made they parted with them for the most part. These schools were built with great sacrifice, and in almost every village without exception we built a Sunday school. I would like hon. Members to come to the counties of the West of England, and they would not be able to go to any village or hamlet in Devon or Cornwall where the Methodist people have not, mainly through the pence of the agricultural labourer and the contributions of the poor people, built their Sunday schools.
The second solution, then, is that the denominational system should be established everywhere, and that every community should be able to set up schools. Where would that stop? What about the Communist community? I do not accept the views of the Communists, but God forbid that I should deny their sincerity. They have what are sometimes called Socialist Sunday schools, and why should not this right be conceded to them? To many a man his politics is his religion, and suppose people say, "We will have none of your religion of modern days, which is a dope to the working classes, and we want a school for 50 children," are we going to give them that right? If so, when the Archbishop of Birmingham has seen his Utopia established, what shall we have in this country? Our national system broken up, our system of education utterly disintegrated, local authorities driven to despair, and the whole system of education receiving a set-back from which it could not recover for years.

Mr. EGAN: What is a country without God?

Mr. FOOT: I have not been speaking in sympathy with the Communists' demand. I do not believe that any progress can be accomplished in this country unless it has a religious basis, and I do not believe that any man can fully live
his life and face his end, as he should face it, unless his life has had a religious basis. I hope nothing that I have said has been inconsistent with that. If then we cannot have a secular solution, or the solution of all denominations being able to make their own schemes, with what are we left? We are left with what we have in this country, which, after all, is a very remarkable thing. We have set up the State school in which we have sought to make available simple religious instruction such as shall be acceptable to the general body of religious opinion in the country. I should like to know any country in the world where the several denominationalists have been more generously treated. The State goes to them, and says, "You cannot come into this scheme; we wish you could." I welcome the movement established in many schools in this country, which has been accepted by a great number of Anglicans. In the county to which I belong, the religious syllabus has been agreed upon by the Anglican and Nonconformist authorities, and there is no difference and no difficulty in Cornwall because of the arrangement that has been arrived at. That system is spreading.
If the denominations are not able to come into the schools, what the State says is: "If you wish to stay outside the State system, we are not going to force you in. You cannot come in, and we deplore it. We wish you could come in, but as long as you stay out, the dual system is perpetuated, and we will do our best to meet your objections." What does the State say then? It says: "You shall retain denominational management of your own schools." Is that not something? The hon. Member for Mile End said that he did not understand what public control meant. It means that in a school that is supported out of public money, there are only two public managers out of six, and they are in a perpetual minority. We first give a perpetual majority to the managers of denominational schools; we then give them the right to appoint their own teachers. Not only that, but out of the public purse we pay every penny of educational expenditure. We have had postcards sent to us asking that we would postpone the operation of this Bill until financial assistance is forthcoming out of public funds for non-provided schools. What
has the State been doing all this time? Out of every £10 spent on non-provided schools, £9, and very often more, comes out of the public purse. Now we have this postcard asking that financial assistance should be given—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Read the whole of it.

Mr. FOOT: The postcard says:
As one of your Catholic constituents, I ask you to vote for the Amendment postponing its coming into operation until financial assistance is forthcoming out of public funds for non-provided schools.
The argument is so often made, and it was implicit in the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham), that these schools are being denied assistance out of public funds, and it is as well that we should see what contribution is being made to them. Down to the last item, down to the nibs in the pens, blotting paper and text-books, provision is made out of public funds.

Mr. OLDFIELD: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in exploring the whole of this ground so fully, seeing that this Amendment concerns only the giving of financial assistance to meet the extra charges incurred by the raising of the school-leaving age? I submit that at the moment we are not concerned with the basis of the 1902 settlement.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young): I think Mr. Speaker has allowed more or less general references to this matter.

Mr. FOOT: Surely the hon. Member will appreciate that the general argument in regard to non-provided schools was raised from his own side of the House. It started with the seconder of the Amendment, who began by lauding the Act of 1902.

Mr. SULLIVAN: On a point of Order. I do not think the hon. Member wants to be unfair, but I want him to explain—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must address his point of Order to me.

Mr. SULLIVAN: In addressing my point of Order to you, Sir, I want the hon. Member to define the £9 out of every £10 to which he has referred.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. SULLIVAN: It may be a point of explanation.

Mr. FOOT: I am sorry if I cannot pursue my argument. Out of every £10 spent in the non-provided schools £9 is provided by the State, and beyond that very large sums are granted by way of subsidy to denominational training colleges. All that is asked in return for these immense public gifts is that they should provide the school. All they have to do is to provide the building, not to hand it over. The building does not become the property of the local authority; it is the property of the other people. From the other side of the House the question is put, "Why spend money on provided schools when you do not spend it on non-provided schools?" When the State is spending money upon the provided schools it is spending money upon State property, and when it is spending money upon non-provided schools it is spending money upon the property of somebody else. That, at any rate, is some distinction, to start with.
The terms of the settlement of 1902 were these: We do not ask you to hand the building over; the building shall remain your property; we want it only for so many hours a week; during the other hours of the week and during the week end you can use it for your own Church and social purposes. All we ask you to do is to provide a building for so many hours per week in return for this lavish concession of public money. That was the so-called settlement of 1902. That agreement has been generously kept by the State, but every black-listed non-provided school is a breach of the agreement. Every time the State authority has come down and said that a non-provided school does not comply with the conditions, if the bond had been enforced to its last letter then and there that school, which was failing to comply with the conditions under which it had received public money—[Interruption]. Yes, there are a large number of black-listed non-provided schools in this country, and I say that every one of them constitutes a breach of the agreement which was arrived at in 1902. The result of that breach of agreement is that in some parts of the country a generation of children—at any rate, the children over a period of many years—have been educated under conditions which no Member of this
House would tolerate for his own children.
If that question is to be re-opened, as is the suggestion here, I ask this House, which I believe to be the fairest assembly in the world, to recognise the disabilities of the people for whom I speak. There are the disabilities of the single school areas. I listened to the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) in the Debate which took place in Committee. He said then that more important than the number was the fact that we were dealing with the vast majority of the schools in the single school areas. It was the single school area which constituted the disability. Another hon. Member sitting behind me asked, "What consideration is there for the parents of these 2,000,000 children?" He talked as if the 2,000,000 children in the Anglican schools were all the children of Anglican parents, but that is an utter fallacy. I could take him to parishes in Cornwall where the majority of the people who are religiously minded are Methodists, but where it is a Church school. The majority of the children in those parishes come from Nonconformist homes. After the last Debate I had a letter from a County Councillor in my own district in Cornwall stating that in his village two-thirds of the people were Nonconformists but that the school had always belonged to the Church. He said:
My father would not let me go to the Church school. He wanted me to go to the council school. The Church school was near my own father's farm, but when I was a little boy I had to walk three miles to school and three miles back so as to have the advantage of going to a school which was a publicly-controlled school.
For a long time two-thirds of the people in that village have been Nonconformists, but there the Church school remains today, and it is the only school to which the children can go. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway say it is essential in the case of these Church schools that not only should there be an hour for religious instruction but that the school should be permeated with an atmosphere. How can it be fair—

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Who has ever said that?

Mr. FOOT: I am certain that I have not made a mistake in that respect. That was said by one of the hon. Members,
whose constituency I have forgotten, who was sitting up by the second post upon the fourth bench. It was said in the last Debate in this House. I believe the hon. Member represents one of the Divisions of Liverpool.

Lord E. PERCY: I thought the hon. Member was referring to something which had taken place in this Debate. Had we not better confine ourselves to that?

HON. MEMBERS: No! Sit down!

Mr. FOOT: I have no wish to score any debating point. I am only trying to put a disability which I thought it was common ground does exist. It has been argued so often that the religious teaching is not confined to the lesson of an hour or an hour-and-an-half's duration but to the permeation of the school in its regular atmosphere, and it is not fair to have these single-school areas where children are compelled to go to Church schools by force of law. Under the Hadow reorganisation scheme I fear that we are going to aggravate this question of the single-school areas. I beg hon. Members to note what is happening in some cases. At the present time there are self-contained Council schools where boys and girls can rise from the lowest standard to the highest standard. Now there is to be a system of reorganisation of the schools in a district under which we say: In that school we will take only children under 11; in this school are to be the children over 11; to that school the boys shall go; to this school the girls shall go. It is a system of reorganisation with a central school, and if that central school is a denominational school, then that district becomes a single-school area.
In this reorganisation scheme we may be depriving many boys and girls of the right which they now have to go to a publicly-controlled school, and make it necessary for them, at some period of their school life, to go to a denominational school. That grievance has been recognised by wise people in this country—by the Bishop of Chichester, by the Bishop of Ripon and other distinguished Churchmen, who have recognised that the central school should be a council school. I hope this House will agree with some of those far-sighted Church leaders. I will not speak about the dis-
abilities of teachers under this system. That disability was left by the Act of 1902. Let there be no mistake about it, that grievance is felt by a great many people. It is a grievance that in 11,000 schools, or thereabouts, the door is closed to the applicant who in the clash and counter clash with his colleagues in his College or University career may have gained distinctions beyond the rest but who is now denied employment in those schools because he is a Nonconformist, and not through any failing in his character. There are 11,000 of such schools. The settlement in this matter will be judged very largely by the extent to which it deals with those two disabilities.
There were other matters with which I had intended to deal, but I have been led astray so often by interruptions. I would, however, like to make a reference to one subject which has now immediately arisen. In common with other Members I have received a number of postcards on this subject. I think a great mistake has been made by the appeal to set aside this Bill until this settlement on financial grounds is arrived at. I hope an agreement will be found, but do not think we shall be bullied into a settlement. I am quite prepared to enter into a conversation with any of my neighbours, whether they are persons who agree with me or not.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Why did you not agree at the conference?

Mr. FOOT: I do not know to what conference the hon. Member is referring. It is difficult to carry on a conference when at the start a pistol is put upon the table, and I very much regret that there has now come into these proceedings a tone of threat. One of my colleagues in the House showed me this evening a letter which had been sent to him this morning. It is a letter such as we have had—[Interruption.] It was written by one of the clerics of one of the Churches in this controversy and stated at the end:
Failing your support being given, the Catholics of"—
I will not give the name of the place—
will seriously consider the continuance of their support to your Membership at the next Election.

HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

Mr. FOOT: We are in a lamentable position if, at a time when there are other concerns occupying the mind of every serious citizen, the governing consideration is to be whether schools in which already £9 out of every £10 spent is contributed from public funds are to have further advantages. If that is to be the determining consideration—[Interruption.] Very well, I will leave it there. If that method of approach is approved I leave it there, but I should have thought it would not be approved.

Mr. EGAN: Can the hon. Member say whether that was received by one of his own colleagues and whether a pledge was given?

Mr. FOOT: The question of his having given a pledge or not is not a question for me. It was one of the hon. Member's colleagues to whom the letter was sent and I have no doubt he will show him the letter, and the very honourable reply that he made saying that he would not allow threats of that kind to determine his action. I started my speech by saying that I hoped we should be able to establish such conditions as would not excite or exacerbate feelings, and if my speech has been at all provocative may I be allowed to say that that was not my intention, and I hope I have not said anything to hurt the feelings of anyone? It was, however, essential that there should be a presentment of the point of view which we represent. I know nothing of the conversations which have taken place since I bade farewell to the right hon. Gentleman opposite just before the Recess. I only know what I have read in the newspapers. As far as my services are concerned, they are at his disposal. I feel that a settlement is still to be looked for. We must put the claims of the children first, and I am hopeful that a settlement may yet be arrived at. In my view, nothing would do more to hinder that settlement than the passing of an Amendment which would enforce on this House the obligation of securing a conclusion of difficult negotiations as the price of a Bill which in its main proposal is earnestly desired by a majority of Members. The right hon. Gentleman is wise in declining
to have his hands forced, and I support him in the stand which he has taken against this Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the speech which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has just made, I cannot understand how he came to accept the Bill which was introduced last summer by the President of the Board of Education.

Mr. FOOT: I spoke upon that Bill, and made some criticisms in this House, particularly in relation to the appointment of teachers.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am aware that the hon. Member's colleagues threatened to fight that Bill line by line and word by word. Let, there be no mistake about this matter. It was partly owing to the threat which came from hon. Member on the Liberal benches that the Bill introduced last summer was not proceeded with. I want to avoid introducing any heat into this Debate, but, we have to remember that there are certain hon. Members, whose sincerity on this subject we respect, who object to any assistance whatsoever being given to the voluntary schools of the country. We have to recognise that fact. Those hon. Members have their spokesmen, and they will do their utmost to prevent the passing of any proposals giving assistance to voluntary schools. Those hon. Members want to do away with the dual system, and they never accepted the compromises of 1902 and 1906 and other compromises since. Now they are not satisfied with the dual system, and they want a secular system in the schools. We have to recognise the existence of that minority, though they ask for something which is not practical politics.
I want the President of the Board of Education to give some consideration to our side of the matter. I refer to those interested in the Church of England schools and also in the Roman Catholic schools. I am glad to see the Prime Minister in his place. I can assure him that there is a way to be found out of this difficulty, one which will not make a settlement more difficult and will not lead to any division amongst the supporters of the Government on this side of the House.
First of all, we have general agreement that a settlement must be arrived at to
deal with the position which will be caused by the raising of the school age in order to utilize the voluntary schools. We want a proper arrangement of all classes under secondary instruction, and therefore it is essential that we should make use of all existing modernised schools. We have some magnificent new schools in Yorkshire connected with the Church to which I belong, and I know there are a number of Roman Catholic schools which it will be very desirable to use especially in the South. In the negotiations which have already taken place the spokesmen representing the denominational schools concerned have agreed that teachers who do not belong to their denomination shall be appointed to instruct the children transferred from other denominations or from council schools. The hon. Member for Bodmin is wrong in contending that in denominational schools only denominational teachers will be appointed, because under the system of reorganisation which has been agreed upon as a result of the negotiations—I congratulate the President of the Board of Education upon the result of those negotiations—teachers, whether belonging to the Nonconformists community or whoever they are, will be allowed to come into the denominational schools to teach Nonconformist children or the children of any other denomination. That is a tremendous step forward to meet the objections which have been raised by the teachers, and I am glad that the teachers have generally agreed to the proposed compromise.
It cannot be denied that we must make use of these voluntary schools. Supposing we take the hon. Member for Bodmin and his friends at their word. Have hon. Members considered what it will cost to provide schools for the 2,000,000 children who are now being educated in Church of England schools and other voluntary schools. The cost will be about £33,000,000. I do not think that estimate has been challenged. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now sitting on the Treasury Bench, and we are all aware what he would say if he were asked to provide £30,000,000 to make up the amount required for providing the school accommodation which will be necessary when the system is reorganised and without being able to use the existing voluntary schools. I feel sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
say, "If I had £30,000,000 to spend, I would rather use it for other social services such as better pensions for the old people." I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman would have a great deal to say against any proposal to spend £30,000,000 upon school accommodation when excellent schools are already available.
The raising of the school age necessitates some agreement being arrived at with the voluntary schools, and, obviously, some financial assistance must be given. A very large measure of control has been agreed, to in return; there will be a considerable amount of public control. We have been told that legislation will be required if this Bill is to be efficiently worked in order to carry out the new concordat and provide the necessary finance in return for a large measure of public control. I know the President of the Board of Education desires to get an agreed Bill through the House if possible, and he does not want to encounter too much opposition. My right hon. Friend said that he will abide by his promise to legislate if general agreement can be obtained—that is the first "if"—and that he would then put to the Cabinet concrete proposals. That is the second "if" or doubt. The right hon. Gentleman then told us that a Labour Government would no doubt give effect to the necessary legislation.
There are, therefore, three doubts or three "ifs." What will happen if this Bill leaves the House without the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr)? I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by "substantial agreement." I understand that there were four great Nonconformist bodies represented at the conference, and all but one were agreed on this question. I would like to point out that the bon. Member for Bodmin speaks not only for the Nonconformists, for whom he is an eloquent advocate, but also claims to speak for the rest of the public who have no religious convictions. At present the whole position is left in a state of uncertainty, but as soon as this Bill passes we have been told that everything will be settled. We have to consider the tremendous press of legislation this Session, and next Session, some of which will be highly controversial. At the
present moment we are faced with demands for legislation dealing with factories, the Eight Hour Bill possibly for railways, mines, and other questions, and before very long we shall have what is known as "the Slaughter of the Innocents," which entails the dropping of a large number of Bills at the end of every Session. We have no guarantee whatever that Parliamentary time will be provided to pass the legislation which will be necessary to bring in the voluntary schools if this Measure is passed. We do not know what will happen at the next Election or when it will come. We expect to win the next Election but a miracle may happen, and we may find another Government in power. The hon. Member for Mile End has already reminded us that the pledges given by the President of the Board of Education will certainly not bind any future Parliament.
If we could be told definitely that the Government intend to legislate on this question, I believe a statement of that kind would satisfy everyone on these benches, and it would satisfy every reasonable person who is interested in this question. All we have been told is that if substantial agreement can be arrived at, the legislation required will be put before the Cabinet, and it is believed that the Labour movement will support this legislation. I propose this way out which will avoid a Division at all. We want the Prime Minister to state definitely that he does intend to pass legislation, and that he will try to meet the wishes of Nonconformists for an agreed Bill. There are secularists in the Labour party whose wishes we also want to meet, and we want to come to a definite agreement on this matter. The Bill with which we are now dealing will not be worth the paper on which it is written unless the voluntary schools are brought in, and to do that there must be further legislation. We want to get round an awkward corner. We want to arrive at a certain measure of unanimity, and we desire to meet the views of our Nonconformist critics. We are honestly trying to find a way out of this difficulty.
There is another matter that must be mentioned. Suppose that this Bill passes this House without the Amendment, what guarantee is there that it will pass another place? We have [...]
reckon on that, and we may as well face the facts quite frankly and openly; there will be a grave danger of this Bill being defeated in another place unless the voluntary schools are to be brought in. Already we have postponed its operation until September, 1932, largely at the request of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, who are now resisting agreement. I am afraid that much of its value from the point of view of unemployment is lost owing to that postponement, and, unless we can come to an agreement with regard to the voluntary schools, much of its value from the point of view of education will be lost also. Two million children will, as has been said by the hon. Member opposite, be treated as untouchables, as outcasts not entitled to the same decency of schools, the same modernity of equipment, and the same efficiency of education which others will get whose parents, by, as has been said, the accident of birth, happen to be in a position or willing to send them to council schools.
I appeal to the Government to try to turn this undertaking the other way round. All that we want is an undertaking that they recognise that this matter has to be settled by legislation, and that the legislation will be so framed as to ensure the greatest measure of agreement. It is only putting the horse in front of the cart. At present we are dependent upon agreement by certain objectors. It will be said—it has been said, and it will be repeated—that, if we pass this Amendment, we cheek the possibility of agreement. I cannot follow that reasoning at all. I believe that we shall simply stiffen the backs of those who have made it quite plain already, in the Press and elsewhere, and since the conference was held at the Board of Education, that they are against any assistance to voluntary schools. If this Amendment is passed, the burden will then be upon them of having prevented the raising of the school-leaving age to 15, to which some of them have paid a good deal of lip service, and in regard to which some are of course perfectly sincere; but the passing of the Amendment, so far from preventing a settlement, will strengthen the hands of my right hon. Friend.
I am bound also to say this: We have not been encouraged up to now with hopes even if an agreement is come to. It the General Election we were autho-
rised by our party to promise that there should be a round-table conference for the purpose of trying to seek agreement. I myself, in my place in this House, reminded the Minister of Education of that pledge, and I have always been told that there is no possibility of agreement, and that, therefore, a round-table conference could not be called. There was no question of calling a round-table conference at all until my hon. Friend's Amendment was put down. [Interruption.] I am only dealing with what is common knowledge in the House. An agreement was reached within the House, as nearly as it was possible to reach agreement, at any rate between the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics and the Minister himself. The original idea was that, if the Roman Catholics could be satisfied, and the Anglicans could be satisfied legislation would proceed. The Anglicans were fairly well satisfied with the last Bill, and always supported it, and we have a right to speak in this matter. We were always led to understand that, if the Roman Catholics were satisfied, another Bill would be introduced. When the Roman Catholics were agreed, when the Anglicans were agreed, when the teachers were agreed, when the local authorities were agreed, when a great many Nonconformists were agreed, we were told that there could be no settlement—

Mr. COVE: If my hon. and gallant Friend says that the teachers were agreed, I must point out that that statement must be modified very considerably. As a matter of fact, the attitude of the National Union of Teachers is a noncommittal attitude. They reserve to themselves the right to consider any Bill if and when it is brought before this House, and to support, amend or criticise it, or take any action that they may deem desirable. Therefore, it is wrong, it is an over-emphasis, to say that the National Union of Teachers has agreed to any proposal whatever.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was quoting the President of the Board of Education, and my hon. Friend must address himself to the President of the Board of Education. I quoted the speech of the Minister at the beginning of these debates. I accept my hon. Friend's statement that the National Union of Teachers are not agreed, but a great
many teachers are agreed, and there is hope of agreement with the others—

Mr. COVE: Their attitude is noncommittal.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I put it no higher than that. Then, when agreement had been come to on both sides of the House, my right hon. Friend suddenly discovered that he must have a round-table conference, but not till then could we get a round-table conference, and in the meantime 18 months had been lost. It is necessary to remind the House of what has gone before, and of the fact that we are again told by my right hon. Friend that, if he can get a substantial agreement, he will approach the Cabinet, and then he believes that a Labour Government in its wisdom will pass the necessary legislation. We ask for something more definite than that, and we believe that the Prime Minister can satisfy us. All that we want is a recognition of the facts as they are, and a declaration that the Government mean to deal with the facts as they are. We only want a promise that the Government intend to govern with as wide an agreement as they can get, and that they will bring in a Bill to help the voluntary schools, without which they could not possibly make the present Bill work. In the highest interests of education what we ask is reasonable; in the highest interests of the children it is reasonable; and, from the point of view of the many undertakings and pledges of the party in the endeavour to meet these very difficult circumstances which have been inherited, and for which we are not responsible, I think the Government might at least say that. If they will do so, there is no need for us to divide on this matter. If we pass this Amendment, another Bill can be introduced in due course, and my right hon. Friend can continue his negotiations with his hands very much strengthened, in order to get agreement among the only section involved which is standing out on this great question.

Commander SOUTHBY: I should like to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) in paying a tribute to the way in which the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) spoke in introducing this Amendment. I think the whole House
will agree that his speech was a broadminded and genuine one, in which there was no trace of religious rancour from first to last. The fact that we on this side of the House are supporting an Amendment moved by an hon. Member on the other side, who is not of the same religious persuasion as some of us who are speaking in support of it, is, I think, sufficient proof that we are actuated neither by considerations of party nor by religious bias. [Interruption]. I hope that the hon. Member who laughs is as clear in his conscience as I am in mine. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] I hope that the hon. Member means that when he says it. I have no desire to raise or to increase in any way any question of religions difference, either here or throughout the country. I am pleading for an act of bare justice to the non-provided schools. I deplore the fact that there has been no settlement. I am sure that all those who took part in the conversations during the Recess endeavoured as far as they could to bring about a settlement of a very difficult question. It is a plain fact that the non-provided schools cannot possibly face the burden which will be placed upon their shoulders if they are to take such steps as are necessary to fit them for the carrying out of the provisions of this Bill. I do not think that that is controverted; I do not think that any Member of the House will deny that it is the fact. I do not think that the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster have ever been queried by any Member of the House, and the fact that two-fifths of the children of this country are receiving instruction in non-provided schools does entitle the non-provided school to reasonable consideration from this House.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) made a point which I am glad the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) took up, namely, that the 2,000,000 children in these non-provided schools are not by any means all of the Anglican persuasion, but belong to many religious denominations. That, surely, is a very good proof of our fair-mindedness and our desire to see justice done. In supporting this Amendment we have at heart, not only the interests of the Anglican children, but the interests of
children of other denominations who are receiving excellent instruction at Church schools. Nowhere in this Bill from first to last is there any mention whatever of a non-provided school. If the school-leaving age is raised before this agreement, or some agreement, is reached, there is no doubt that a grave injustice will be done to many children in this country, who will receive an education which is not as good as that given to the children who are educated in provided schools. The Minister said that he did not wish to handicap the children in the provided schools. Why, then, does he desire to handicap the 2,000,000 children who are receiving instruction in the non-provided schools? If he is sincere in his wish not to handicap one lot of children he should be equally anxious not to handicap another lot. He himself has said that he believes that agreement can be reached. Surely, if he is sincere in his wish not to handicap any children, he will hold his hand with regard to this Bill in order that a settlement may be reached which will mean that there will be no unfairness to any children whatever.
The Minister's whole speech was a proof that this Bill is premature. Whatever its merits, whether it be a good Bill or a bad Bill, whether the age should be raised or not, until a settlement is reached on the non-provided school question the Bill is premature. There is no reason why this House should pass a Bill which is premature when by waiting, if the Minister is to be believed, agreement is possible. The Minister said that you cannot hustle an agreement. May I ask him why he wants to hustle the Bill? If it is important not to hustle an agreement, it is equally important not to hustle a Bill through if agreement can in fact be obtained by waiting. He has said that we can get agreement. Why not get the agreement without causing injustice to any children in the country? I endorse the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster that the Minister should accept this Amendment. If he really means that he can get agreement, there will be no danger in his accepting the Amendment, because, if he accepts the Amendment and gets his agreement, the Bill can then be put into force. If he means, when he says he cannot accept the Amendment, that if he accepted it the Bill would be
wrecked then surely that is a denial of his statement that he believes that an agreement can be reached. In other words, the Minister cannot have it both ways.
I do not believe that the use of such expressions as "obstinate religious prejudice" from the Government Front Bench can possibly help in reaching a solution of this very difficult question. I think that the only way in which a solution can be reached is as far as possible to keep religious prejudice out. The hon. Member for Bodmin read a postcard, of which I suppose every Member of this House has received some hundreds, but I think it would have been fairer if, in reading that postcard, the hon. Member had made it quite clear that, when it referred to financial assistance, it meant, not financial assistance in the past, which everyone will agree has been given, but only financial assistance to non-provided schools in the future to enable them to put themselves in a position to carry out the provisions of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member, who must know that that is what was meant by the postcard, may, perhaps, take an opportunity of saying to the House that he did not wish to misrepresent its meaning.

Mr. FOOT: I did not wish it to be inferred that those who sent the postcard did not know that it had relation to this Measure, but I think that the wording of the postcard was unfortunate.

6.0 p.m.

Commander SOUTHBY: I am sure the House will accept the hon. Member's statement. The wording of the postcard may have been unfortunate, but I suggest that the wording of his speech when he read it and made his point was equally unfortunate, and I am glad that the matter has now been put right. The hon. Member suggested that there were two solutions of the question. I suggest that there is a third. If, indeed, you are going to take away all the church schools from Church control, would it not be possible when all the schools are secular schools to give opportunities to ministers of the various denominations to give religious instruction in those secular schools to the children belonging to those denominations? I do not think that would be impossible. The ingenious
suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy) to obviate the necessity for a Division taking place in order that not only he and his friends but also the Minister might escape from a dilemma, will, if it is examined, not really hold water, because the suggestion, as I understood it, was that the Minister should give an undertaking that there would be definite legislation in order to effect a solution, whereas the Minister's promise, as I understood it, was that, if an agreement was reached, the Government would then bring in legislation following the agreement. On that point, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I are in agreement. The Minister also stated that, if the Government gave a categorical promise to bring in legislation on this question, it would make it more difficult to obtain agreement, and I think that it was in that connection that he said it would raise "obdurate religious prejudice." Therefore, I cannot believe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can really hope for the acceptance of his suggestion by the Front Bench when the Front Bench, in the person of the Minister, has already said that if a promise of that character were given from the Front Bench they believed it would be prejudicial to a settlement being arrived at.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I believe we are very near indeed to agreement on the matter, and that turning round the formula will really strengthen my right hon. Friend's hands. I was not being Jesuitical.

Commander SOUTHBY: I quite understand, and I agree that we are very near to a solution, but in his speech the Minister said that, if he made a promise to bring in legislation before any agreement had been reached, it would prejudice the chances of agreement, and I cannot see therefore how the hon. and gallant Gentleman can possibly expect the Minister to accept his suggestion, ingenious as it is. Whatever our religious convictions may be, I do not believe any Member of the House wants to do an injustice to the non-provided schools. They deserve well of the people of this country. They bore the burden and heat of the education of
the children for many years before there was secular education, and, in common justice and fairness, they should be given a fair and square deal. Unless they get a square deal, they cannot possibly put themselves into a position to carry out the provisions of this Bill, and if they cannot carry out the provisions of the Bill, then the children who go to them must suffer. I shall most cordially support the Amendment. One point made by the Mover was that the Church schools should have teachers of the persuasion to which the schools belong. I do not think anyone will deny that that is right. If a school belongs to the Roman Catholic or the Anglican persuasion, in common sense and justice why should the teachers not be people who believe in the particular tenets of the Roman Catholic or the Anglican faith? The Bill is premature. It should not be brought into force until a settlement has been arrived at. I believe a settlement could fairly easily be arrived at, And I hope that either the Minister will accept the Amendment, or that the Bill may be lost until such time as agreement has been reached.

Mr. EDE: I divide the supporters of the Amendment into two categories, those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), desire to see the raising of the school-leaving age, and desire the passage of the Bill, and those who have opposed it at every stage and, while they may be genuinely in favour of the Amendment, will welcome any opportunity that they can get to defeat the Bill. I am most sincerely desirous of a settlement. On the Bill introduced last summer I made a speech in favour of the settlement that was then incorporated. It is because I desire a settlement wholeheartedly and sincerely that I shall vote with the Government. I believe that, if this Amendment is incorporated in the Bill, it will seriously hamper my right hon. Friend in his efforts to secure a settlement. The issues that are involved in the matter go back very deep into English history, and it is quite a mistake to imagine that putting this Amendment into the Bill will assist in their solution. Those who are engaged in the administration of education know that this problem is seriously retarding the work of reorganisation in the schools, and is leading to extraordinary subter-
fuges which would make the hair of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) stand on end if he were in the Committee Room and saw them being done, by members of his own persuasion, both political and religious, in their endeavour to get round the limitations of the present Act.
In order to prove that it is essential that there should be a speedy settlement, I want to describe one problem with which I am dealing in a parish that is well known to the Noble Lord, where you have three schools on roads in the shape of a letter L. The obvious school to make the central school is the one at the angle. It is a Church school. The one at the top of the L is a council school. An essential thing for the central school is to build some handicraft rooms and domestic subject rooms. We cannot build them if we make all three schools into a central school group, and make the Church school there the central school. If we leave the school at the top of the L—the council school—temporarily not united to the other two, and build the rooms at the angle, we can do it under the existing law. The next week we make the council school contributory and we can then continue our practical subjects in the rooms we have just built. That is a subterfuge that is unworthy of any great education authority, and it is a great pity that they should be driven to it. I give that as an example of the way in which the 1902 settlement is not suitable for dealing with the present situation.
There are some people, I believe some Members of Parliament, who believe that by carrying on a war of attrition you may abolish the voluntary schools. I had some very interesting figures giver, me yesterday by the President of the Board on that issue, and I find that between 1903 and 1930 the children in Church schools decreased by 902,000, but the children in Catholic schools, although the total number of children in all the schools of the country fell by 421,000, had actually risen by 33,666. It is, at any rate, certain that no war of attrition has seriously weakened the position of the Catholic Church in this matter. You have at the moment over 350,000 children whose parents say, "Not merely let my child be in a Catholic atmosphere at home, but in everything that has to do with his budding life he should also be
in a Catholic atmosphere." I have no doubt the hon. Member for Bodmin and myself will both agree that to keep a child in one atmosphere for the whole of his life is a narrowing and a stunting influence, and I rejoice that my parents, though they were at least as strong Nonconformists as the parents of the hon. Member for Bodmin, allowed me to go to a Church school. It is true that I am no great ornament to Church education, but at the University I was able to assist divinity students who felt difficulty in mastering the intricacies of the Church Catechism.
We have to accept the fact that the parents of 350,000 children—and the children in Catholic schools are the children of Catholic parents far more than the children in Anglican schools are the children of Anglican parents—say, "My child is not being educated unless it is in a Catholic atmosphere." I desire to see every child irrespective of its parentage get the same benefits from the State for education if it is to avail itself of the State system of education, and, therefore, I desire to see a, settlement in which the necessary concessions are made to the public in the way of control, and in the way of dealing with all the public interests involved, which shall enable the children in the Catholic schools to get the same advantages as children in the provided schools.
The hon. Member for Bodmin alluded to a speech by Mr. Birrell on the Third Reading of a famous Bill. I should like to read from Mr. Birrell's speech on the Second Reading of that Bill.
As to Roman Catholic schools, a man must have a heart like the nether millstone who is not deeply touched by the enormous sacrifices which the Roman Catholics of this country have made to provide for the education and the religious needs of their fellow-believers. They are cut off from much which in other times they were fairly entitled to consider their own—cathedrals, and other splendid foundations—and they have had cast upon them the obligation of looking after hundreds and thousands of poor Irish folk. I believe I am right when I say it is a charge that ought not to be brought against the Liberal party as a whole, or against any section of it, that it is without sympathy with those from whom on many important points they radically differ.
Those words, uttered 24 years ago, ought to be the inspiration of this House and of the Liberal party to-day.

Mr. FOOT: We do not complain of Mr. Birrell's proposals.

Mr. EDE: No, I was coming to that point. What was the proposal of Mr. Birrell? It was that these schools should be allowed to contract out, and that 370,000 children, because of the faith of their parents—and they are not responsible for that—should be denied the benefit of a State system of education. I am not prepared to punish any child because his parent fails to hold the same religious convictions which I hold and the same outlook on the proper training of the child. I feel that if we put this Amendment into the Bill—and this is where I desire to address my remarks more particularly to my hon. Friend who has moved it and my hon. Friends who have supported it—we shall help those persons who are determined to wreck this Measure if they can. I believe that my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct when he says that it will help obdurate minorities to hold out against the essential proposals of the many, and to hold out against agreement. I regret that the people who, in the main, are holding out at the moment are those associated with the hon. Member for Bodmin.

Mr. FOOT: You ought to put all the facts before them.

Mr. EDE: I really tried to make that sentence as fair as I possibly could. I said "in the main." Would they like, if they had a Measure of which they were in favour, to find in it a sentence that would place the parents in the position in which they are placed? I appeal to my Catholic friends to consider whether it is wise, in the interests of a Measure which they want, to press this Amendment upon the House, carry it if they can, and ensure that the Bill becomes to all practical intents and purposes a thing which cannot further be proceeded with? I do not blame hon. Members above the Gangway opposite for supporting the Amendment. They are entitled to support it for both reasons, namely, that they want the Amendment and that they want to kill the Bill. I have no objection to their voting for it, but I appeal to my hon. Friends on this side of the House, especially those who take the view which I take, that although we are not Catholics ourselves we desire that the fairest possible treatment shall be accorded the Catholics and that their
children shall not suffer at all because of the faith of their parents, and ask them whether it is not wise to desist from pressing this Amendment to a Division.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I am one of those who, from the beginning of this Bill, have opposed it at every stage and in every way, and therefore I come into the category of those to whom the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has just referred. However much we on this side of the House dislike this Measure, and however much we believe it to be wrong, we want it, if it has the misfortune to be placed upon the Statute Book, to be as good and as workable a Measure as possible. In my genuine dislike of the Measure, I sincerely believe it will prove absolutely unworkable unless some such proposal as this is inserted in it. Hon. Members talk of the hope of a settlement. I also hope for a settlement, though if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education still believes it possible, after the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), the sunny optimism which we are accustomed to associate with him must be very sunny indeed. It is no use adopting an attitude—and I am not now going to refer to the hon. Member for Bodmin or to the people whom he represents; I am speaking generally—of political Bourbonism, of forgetting nothing and learning nothing since 1902. I am in full agreement with what the hon. Member said about the illogicality of the present system, but we have to face what we have got.
The hon. Member for South Shields, like myself, is one who will have to administer this Measure. He has pointed out, far better than I can possibly do, the fact that some settlement is absolutely essential if this Bill is to work, and, above all, if the reorganisation, which, though not in the Bill, is mixed up with the Bill, is to be carried out. It is absolutely essential that we should have some power to develop the voluntary schools. The real divergence of opinion between the hon. Member for South Shields and myself is as to whether this Amendment will help or hinder the President of the Board of Education in getting such a settlement. The President of the Board of Education has been
trying to achieve a settlement for 18 months, and up to date he has failed. Although he may have been very near it once or twice, I do not think anyone here to-day can really lead the House to suppose that he is very much nearer a settlement than he was 18 months ago. If that is so, and if a settlement cannot be reached, it must mean that there is a recalcitrant minority. I do not mind whom that minority may be. It may be on one side or it may be on the other. It may be on the side which I represent. But I would say, in the interests of educational administration, that the recalcitrant minority has to be coerced. We cannot sacrifice the development of the education of the children. We cannot sacrifice such benefits, if any, that this Bill may give them. We cannot sacrifice these things to the views of any single solitary section. If this Bill goes through and comes into force without some agreement with regard to the voluntary schools, they will be sacrificed. Therefore, we must have an agreement.
I contend, despite what the hon. Member for South Shields and the President of the Board of Education say, that so far from weakening the position of the right hon. Gentleman, this Amendment would strengthen it, because it gives him the power to say, "We will give you the fullest agreement it is possible to get, but when we have got that agreement, whoever cannot accomodate themselves must, if the House of Commons sees fit"—always if the House of Commons sees fit—"go under, and must be sacrificed in the interests of the education of the children as a whole." I do not think that that is an attitude which anybody can really consider unreasonable. I appeal to the House to give the Minister the power so that if and when the Bill comes into force it shall at least appear on the Statute Book in a workable form, and not in a form which will absolutely stultify any benefit which it may contain.

Mr. SORENSEN: The discussion which has proceeded so far is a very emphatic demonstration of the need for rejecting the Amendment which has been moved this afternoon. It is obvious that in the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) we could hear the accents of Cromwell coming over the ages, and hear the notes of Puritanism ringing out. I, for one, although I do not com-
pletely identify myself with that particular phase of religious life, feel grateful to the hon. Member for Bodmin because he reminds us of that duty to that historic episode in our English history. On the other hand, it is equally true to say that not only does the hon. Member for Bodmin speak with sincerity and emphasis in giving expression to a point of view that the President of the Board of Education himself realises, but also that Members on this side of the House who belong to this party speak with no less sincerity. We feel that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), at least in this sense, was at one with the hon. Member for Bodmin. Both were sincere in their desire to see that their particular attitude to religion and their particular form of faith should be recognised in any educational settlement. Personally, I hope very earnestly indeed that the House will reject this Amendment.
Apart from other matters, I should like to point out this fact. Even from the Roman Catholic standpoint, what is going to happen if this Amendment is carried and if, as a result, as an hon. Member on my right has said, the Bill is killed? It means from the Catholic standpoint, in my assumption, that a very sore calamity confronts them from the educational standpoint. It means, in other words, that if the Bill is passed they may be able to retain in their particular Catholic atmosphere in their own schools several thousands of children, whereas if the Bill is killed and all those Catholic adolescents betwen the ages of 14 and 15 go to factory, workshop, mine or mill—surely even Catholics themselves will admit it—there will not be anything like the Catholic atmosphere there which they would desire. I cannot properly appreciate the Catholic position in this respect. Apparently, they would sooner have a Catholic boy or girl in a non-Catholic factory or a non-Catholic workshop or drifting about the non-Catholic streets than see them, on the other hand, in a Catholic school even with the limits which may be imposed upon them.
I am certain, as has been pointed out more than once, that if the President of the Board of Education gave way to this Amendment it would undoubtedly be used, rightly or wrongly, by certain sections of the community as a victory for
one side. As it stands now, there is no victory for any side. I appreciate, and I am sure many of us appreciate, the fact that behind the discussion which is now taking place there are very deep controversies indeed. I can appreciate those who, for instance, declare that it is almost an outrage upon their conscience to encourage any system which allows public money to be used for doctrinal purposes. I can appreciate that point of view. As a matter of fact, I will say frankly that, although I happen to have a very strong religious faith of my own, I believe that ultimately the only solution of this vexed problem will be along the lines of what is sometimes called—I think quite mistakenly—secular education. I say "quite mistakenly," because the very word "secular" is so ambiguous that I do not think it should be used in this connection. That is to say, I do not want to see, on the one hand, schools used as the cockpit of theological controversy, or for children to be impressed during their tender years with ideas and theories which are not of essential religious value, before they have had a chance to judge for themselves. Where so many of these people go wrong—and I speak humbly in this respect—is in assuming that the impress of an ecclesiastical or theological system is the same thing as religion.
For my part I want to see the educational system of this country profoundly religious. I want to see the atmosphere religious and the curriculum religious. I want to feel that the children of the future will be able to be trained and educated in schools where, even without the word "religion" being mentioned if necessary, they will nevertheless, absorb the religious atmosphere and have a real religious outlook upon life. That is why I sharply distinguished between schools which are nominally of a religious character but which actually are not. The true principles of a fine educational experience are of the essence of religion, though they be not expressed in theological terms. It is by the subtle spiritual nourishment of character that the school fulfils its highest function. The real essense of religion can only be breathed and absorbed by the soul of the child if the soul of the child is given every encouragement. In some of the schools of this
country in which I have been, though they have been nominally of a denominationally religious character, I am bound to confess I have found, as far as I have been able to detect it, less real religious atmosphere than in some schools of an entirely non-denominational kind which I have attended.
I mention that because, although I have said I believe ultimately the solution of this problem will be by banning theological controversy and dogma from the schools, nevertheless I trust that no one will assume thereby that I personally want to see religion in its essence or real nature taken from the schools of the land. As a matter of fact, the real purpose and aim of every school must be to create a religious atmosphere. Children are not retained in schools to learn the three R's and how to wash the back of their necks. Every endeavour is made in schools worthy of the name to encourage that spirit of service co-operation and idealism which surely is the very foundation of a virile religions life. I must confess that I am appalled sometimes at the eagerness of theologians and others to grab children while they are still young, when they cannot judge for themselves, and to place them in an atmosphere where, almost automatically, they become imitations of those who are impressing them.
Although I hold these views, I also observe that there is in this country a large number of people who do not think as I do, and we have to face that fact. Although I hold my own views, obviously, if the other people are going to win, they will win by the process of permeation, education and conversion. I have no right to impose my views on a majority, nor have I the right to impose them on a minority. In other words, my Catholic friends and my Church of England friends honestly feel that it is necessary for them to have their own schools. I regret that fact, but it is a fact. That being so, I think we ought to realise that whatever may be our particular point of view, we must compromise, otherwise we shall have the greatest tragedy of all, the perpetual clash between right and right. I very much hope and believe that in the course of time the President of the Board of Education will achieve a settlement, an agreement, may I say a Christian agree-
ment, between all Christians who at the present time do not see eye to eye. It should not be entirely impossible for those who name the same Name as the Inspirer of their faith to become influenced by the atmosphere of fellowship and reconciliation and, by the process of give-and-take, reach a solution of their difficulties. Must it be said that those who claim to have the highest religion in the world cannot come to a position where they can reach an agreement on this question? If so, then it must be for all time a shame and a scandal, and a deplorable revelation of the fact, that although we name His great Name, we are in our spirit very remote from the One who is supposed to lead us and be our guide.
If the Bill passes, as I trust it will, it will mean that all those who are interested in this matter will realise that the Bill is an accomplished fact, and I am convinced that, psychologically, that will do more to stimulate the various parties to come to an agreement than if the Bill were withdrawn. If the Bill be withdrawn, it will encourage all parties to try to get as much as they possibly can, to go on wrangling, fighting and squabbling, whereas in a much better atmosphere if we pass the Bill there will not be that manœuvring and scheming in order that the different parties may get their own way. When the Bill has become a fact on its passage, all the parties will do their utmost to find out within that limit how they can reach an agreement which is satisfactory to themselves and to those on the other side. I trust very earnestly that the President of the Board of Education will go forward on this courageous path. It must be to him very distressing to feel that some of his own supporters, driven, no doubt, by motives of sincerity, are putting him in a very great predicament this evening, while those who have moved the Amendment no doubt feel distress that the enemies of the Government and of our party are assisting our friends possibly to carry their Amendment.
If the President of the Board of Education presses on with his decision, there will be still differences of opinion, although there will be splitting in this party and in the party below the Gangway opposite, and those in our con-
stituencies who have presented us with so many thousands of those square cards will be disappointed if we do not instantly and automatically bow down to their will, but it will be realised that we have obeyed our consciences in what we believe to be right, in the hope that eventually within our existing education system an agreement will be reached under which no section of religious feeling will be unjustly treated. It will be a compromise, but a compromise which at one and the same time regards the interests of the children and the religious convictions of those who are concerned.

Colonel Sir JAMES REYNOLDS: I gathered from the speech made by the Minister that conciliation is in the air. I also gathered from him that he is hopeful that at no very distant future some system may be evolved which will meet the demands and the just requirements of those who are in the non-provided schools, and will bring them on to the same level as those who are in the provided schools. I see no logical objection to the Amendment from the Minister's point of view, because the Amendment merely asks this House to see to it that the Bill does not come into force until the agreement which the Minister hopes to achieve is forthcoming. Therefore, can see no injustice from the educational point of view, and no illogical action on the part of any Members of this House who want these matters to be rectified, in voting for the Amendment.
I did not understand the frame of mind of the Minister when he said that, properly speaking, the question of providing the money for the non-provided schools was not really the question that has to be dealt with, because they were not entitled to it under the settlement of 1902. In other words, if you have an injustice existing, you are entitled to continue that injustice until some future date arises when you can sweep all the injustices away. That is entirely a false argument and an unjust argument. If we are to perpetuate injustices in our time, when will the period come when we shall be able to sweep all the injustices away? Surely this is the juncture when we ought to look at the education system of this country and begin to take steps to see that it does not become more unjust than it is at the present time, on account of the position that has arisen
owing to the difficulties of those who are running denominational schools.
When the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) was speaking, I felt that once again we were to be thrown into fierce battle on denominational lines. I trust, however, that that atmosphere will not be allowed to enter into our Debates on this occasion, although there is very great temptation to retaliate, after the remarks of the hon. Member. It was a very ungracious thing to suggest that it is entirely the duty of the parents themselves in their own homes to educate their children in the religion in which they believe. I cannot understand that argument. Can it be suggested that parents after a hard day's work should go back to their poor, miserable homes, clear everything away and start the religious instruction of their children? I cannot imagine that anyone would seriously suggest that that is a practicable thing. The State has designed to take the question of the education of the children out of the hands of the parents, and it is their bounden duty to see that the education of the children is continued in the faith of the parents who have handed those children over.
If there is one duty that we Catholics feel more than another—I am speaking as a Catholic at the moment, although I stand here definitely to represent the denominational schools as a whole—it is the absolute necessity and responsibility which rests upon Parliament to do fair by the parents of the children in our schools. We have proved our case up to the hilt. In 1928–29 we projected 40 schools which will take in another 9,000 children. We have closed none. We have had the finger of scorn pointed at us because we cannot keep the black-listed schools up to date. We have been unable to do so because of practical and financial grounds. The bringing of those schools up to the requirements of to-day is a financial impossibility in the congested areas of our cities. It is patent that those schools should become a charge upon the community, and should not be left a charge on the section of the community which has built them originally and is using them to-day.
During the last generation or two, so far as I have been able to watch the affairs of this country, I have noticed
that there has been great consideration shown for the consciences of individual men and women. The conscientious objector has had more consideration than I think he would have received in any other country. That consideration had gone so far that he has been excluded from carrying out the law in various directions. He was even allowed to be excluded from going to the Front to fight for his country, when it was an essential thing that everyone should, according to law, do so. However, the conscience of the conscientious objector was respected. I am not saying anything about the merits of the question; I am merely quoting the fact. I maintain that those who have conscientious proposals to make and conscientious demands to put forward, which they feel to be essential in the interests of our schools, should be equally listened to. This question will never be settled in England and there will never be peace in England educationally, until that conscientious demand has been fully recognised and met.
It is said that this Amendment puts a pistol to the head of the Government. I do not agree with that assertion. It is a delaying Amendment only, and will give the Government time to bring about the agreement which is hoped for by the Minister. I was interested when the hon. Member for Bodmin sought to find the man who had stood up for the denominational schools and had declared that in the denominational schools there should be the atmosphere of that particular denomination. He was looking for someone who spoke from these benches and who came from Liverpool. I do not think it could have been anyone but me that was meant. Therefore, I accept the hon. Member's denunciation, and I say that it is folly to suggest that you can have denominational education in any school without the full atmosphere of that denomination being present in that school. It is folly to talk in any other way. It is folly to suggest, for instance, that in the Catholic schools we should not have the emblems of catholicity. It is good for the children that those emblems should be before them, just as it is well in the case of adults when we have a great decision to make that we should have the pictures of our fathers and mothers before us, and we can ask ourselves what they would have done in the circumstances. All these things are
helpful to the intelligences of the children, and we Catholics as a body stand by these things as being helpful to the child.
I appeal to the House to deal with this matter on lines that will be final and conclusive. I see the very greatest danger that finality and conclusiveness will never be attained if we allow the Bill to pass as it stands to-day. Therefore, I join with confidence and with great respect those hon. Members on the other side of the House who have stood out even from their own party on the question of conscience, as was so ably expressed by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr). I associate myself with him. I could not put the Catholic position, and I certainly could not put the denominational position, better than he did. Now is the time to do justice to the denominational system of this country and recognise the enormous services it has rendered in past days; and also what it is doing to-day. In Liverpool the Anglicans are seeking to raise £250,000 to provide the schools which are necessary in the new areas springing up all round Liverpool, and it is an effort which is produced entirely by considerations of conscience. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment, and pray for the day when a just settlement will be reached.

Mr. DEVLIN: Anyone who enters the House of Commons to-day and listens to this Debate will be struck by some remarkable features. One would imagine that questions of religion associated with education would arouse some of the old passions and prejudices to which some of us were accustomed in the past, and it is all to the credit of modern thought and that wider and keener conception of national duty that the Debate to-day has been absolutely divorced from all that bitterness and prejudice. I am struck by another remarkable feature of this Debate—perhaps it is one of the most remarkable incidents in the history of the present House of Commons—that although we have been discussing one of the most vital things which can concern the life of the nation and its children there has been a manifestation of unanimity rarely shown in the House of Commons on any question. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) stands alone. I understand that he represents
the Liberal party on this question. I should imagine that when a new leader presented himself to carry the flag of Liberalism, at least some of them would have done him the service of gathering round the flag, and I can come to no other conclusion than that, although the hon. Member is undoubtedly sincere, he does not represent the real spirit of the Liberal party or the temper of the English people on this question. He represents some of those antiquated prejudices which characterise so many of his utterances.
The Liberal party have in the past been the powerful advocate and defender of minority interests. We who are supporting this Amendment are the representatives of the most helpless minority in the country, but a minority which does not come appealing in a spirit of charity. It is a minority which, in face of the financial and industrial difficulties surrounding its life, has made the most wonderful sacrifices for the cause of education of any people in Europe. If you go into the great industrial centres and see the splendid educational establishments, the elementary schools, which have been built by the poor, the ill-paid, badly-fed and badly-clad, people of these communities, you will realise that the case made for Catholic people is made on behalf of people who desire to have these concessions because they have made great sacrifices themselves for the cause of education.
This Debate and all that has occurred to-day take the President of the Board of Education out of a difficulty. He has had several conferences of a very satisfactory character. He has impressed upon us the fact that he found very little or no hostility to the spirit and purpose of the Amendment amongst those who did not, represent Catholic interests, and I gathered from his speech that these conferences showed a real desire on the part of all concerned to see justice done to Catholic and non-provided schools. If that be the case so far as these conferences are concerned, and if he wants to secure absolute unanimity in the future—he will never get it in any conference—this Debate has shown that there is one tribunal higher than any conference to which he can appeal—the House of Commons. The President of the Board of Education, I understand, put forward certain financial concessions at one of
these conferences, at least I read so in the Press. I read that the right hon. Gentleman offered to make certain grants to voluntary schools. I do not know whether that is right or not; and the right hon. Gentleman has not dissented. If that be so, why did he not bring forward the proposal to the House of Commons to-day? I was waiting to hear it. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention it, and in that case he should have given us some justification for its non-presentation. That has not been done.
The Prime Minister is in the House at the moment. If there is one consideration that should appeal to him and also to the President of the Board of Education it is the opinion of the House of Commons, the elected representatives of the people. I have listened to this Debate and I have only heard one note sung, and that not a very serious note, in opposition to all this wonderful harmony of view in regard to minority schools, and in view of that fact I make this appeal to the Prime Minister—it will relieve him of all future difficulties and save him from having to hold further conferences. The Prime Minister knows, after his wonderful and successful work at the India Conference upon which I congratulate him, that he can appeal from the detailed, difficult and complex views of a composite body to a great tribunal like the House of Commons and say to them, "I will leave this question to the free vote of the House, I will let the House of Commons decide the question themselves." If he did that, he would, in my judgment, be doing one of the wisest things for the nation, for education and for the Government, that any Prime Minister ever did. The President of the Board of Education said that he was not inclined to take that course. Has he been impressed by the discussion? Has he not realised that only one solitary voice has been raised against the Amendment?
The Government should consider that those who loyally support them will profoundly regret to have to vote against them upon a Bill in which they thoroughly believe. We believe in raising the school age, in better facilities for the increased number of children who will be brought under the re-
organised scheme, but we believe also that this Bill should be a charter of educational freedom not for a section of the children of England but for all the children of England. When you spend public money to enable children to enjoy further educational facilities, it should not only be for children who attend provided schools but for those who attend voluntary schools; they are the children of England just as much as the children who attend other schools. The Labour party and the Government ought to understand best of all that the children of the Irish exiles in this land, the children of the Catholic poor, have been the stoutest and most loyal defenders of our great democratic institutions, and that to the fathers of these children we owe many of the splendid liberties and social reforms which are stamped upon the Statute Book of this country. The Prime Minister has a great chance of rendering a service to himself and to the Government, and of doing what no Prime Minister has ever had a chance of doing before, of satisfying the universal judgment of the House of Commons as expressed in the appeals which have been made from every part of the House.

Lord E. PERCY: The speech of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Devlin) will be welcomed in every quarter of the House for its tone and eloquence, and I should like to press the appeal which the hon. Member has made. It is true that throughout the whole of this Debate no voice has been raised, not even the voice of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), against the principle of special financial assistance in the present circumstances to non-provided schools, upon conditions. There is, undoubtedly, an overwhelming majority in this House for any proposal on these lines which the Government might bring forward; and here may I refer to what the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said about the attitude of hon. Member on this side of the House, as being persons who dislike the Bill as a whole and who would therefore, he supposed, be only too willing to use this opportunity of wrecking the Bill. That is not an accusation which should be made against the party on these benches. Let hon. Members consider what our attitude has been. We have been strongly against the Bill, yet when
the Government brought forward their Bill last summer containing their proposals for a settlement, although many of us were dissatisfied with them, we carefully refrained from putting a single Amendment on the Paper except one desired by the Free Churches, and I certainly went out of my way to make myself unpopular with many of my own Catholic friends by trying to persuade them from their opposition to the proposals.
7.0 p.m.
I did everything I could, and so did all the hon. Members behind me, to encourage and help the proposal of the night hon. Gentleman opposite. If we had the temptation to wreck the Bill on this point, though it might appear to be great, we have resisted it. I say in all sincerity to hon. Members opposite that, much as I dislike this Bill, if I could see a fair settlement of the religious question—even a temporary one—I should regard that settlement as compensating for the evils in the Bill. I am speaking personally, but in that I believe I represent a very large section of hon. Members behind me.
The fact remains that there is in this House an overwhelming majority for the very policy which the right hon. Gentleman has been pursuing and along the very lines upon which he has been trying to get agreement. This Amendment does not put forward any proposal which the President of the Board of Education has not himself put forward. He has taken a certain line during the last 18 months. He has admitted, as everyone admits, that neither reorganisation nor the raising of the school-leaving age—and especially not the raising of the school-leaving age which makes the reorganisation an intensely urgent thing—can be carried out under the present dual system as it stands. You have to amend it in some respects and there are really three courses, one of which the right hon. Gentleman can take. He can say that he will abolish the dual system and that we will have—not the secular system, for there is no reason to drag that in—a completely undenominational or interdenominational system, and that we will make all the schools provided schools, with the very real Christian education that is given in them. Or he can say that we will keep the dual
system but we will take powers which we do not have at present under the Education Act, 1921, to compel children after the age of 11 to go from church schools to provided central schools. Thirdly, he can say that we will enable the non-provided schools to reorganise themselves by bringing them temporary financial assistance. It is that third course which the right hon. Gentleman has been taking. It is that third course to which the great majority of the hon. Members behind him were pledged at the last election. In any case, apart from the question of pledges, that is the line which the right hon. Gentleman has taken.
Why, after 18 months, are we still lacking any official information as to what proposals he has been putting forward? Why are we still left to our own devices in the House of Commons, left to excogitate our own possible solutions? Why has not the right hon. Gentleman brought down to this House the proposals which he has put before the conference, proposals for which we all know there is an overwhelming majority in this House? He has refused to do that simply because there is a section in this House and outside which dislikes those proposals and would like them further amended. Speaking entirely for myself, I will tell the House and the hon. Member for Bodmin what I told hon. Members opposite some months ago, that the way to a settlement is to recognise the justifiable grievances that the Free Churches have in regard to schools in single school areas and to bring forward compromise proposals which would in a measure meet those grievances, which are grievances we all feel. For that again the right hon. Gentleman would have an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons. But he refused to bring forward any proposals for fear of the unpopularity which they might create in some section outside.
This is not a religious issue. It is a question of simple administrative justice and efficiency. I believe that this question can be discussed without any reference to the religious character of the non-provided schools. If they had no religious character, your problems would still remain. It is not justifiable that the Government should refuse to give the opportunity to the House of expressing its majority feelings on a matter of
pure administrative justice, simply because there are religious prejudices which would make that action and the action of the House unpopular in certain sections.
Only one argument has been raised against this Amendment, and that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and his, supporters, of course, echoed him. He has said, "It is unfair to put a pistol to my head. You will give an excuse to all these recalcitrant minorities to put up their terms." Is not that rather an unworthy thing for His Majesty's Government to say as against the parents of children in non-provided schools in our big towns? This is where the right hon. Gentleman always seems to fail to get inside the other person's mind. By bringing forward this Bill, he has put a pistol to the heads of the voluntary schools in a way and to a degree that I never did under any of my reorganisation proposals. It is that pistol which is directed at the head of the voluntary schools to-day. The right hon. Gentleman is in effect saying at this moment to thousands and thousands of persons in Lancashire, who are in a trade dispute and on the streets and out of work, "You will have to stump up money to provide your children with extra accommodation the moment my Bill passes." That is the pressure the right hon. Gentleman is putting upon them. Is it not rather unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman to say: "I really must not give these poor people a handle against me by not raising the school age until I have done for them what I must admit to be just to them"?
In this Amendment we are asking him to do nothing which he does not wish to do himself. We are only asking him to put forward proposals which he would like to push through this House. This House and this Parliament have not at the present moment a very great reputation in this country for businesslike methods and effective action. There may be many reasons for that, but there is surely one reason above all. The House of Commons has never been able to function efficiently in the history of this country unless it was strongly led by a Government which was prepared to take its courage in its hands and to dare the House of Commons to throw out the Measures which they introduced. Never
since Cromwell dissolved the Long Parliament, has any Parliament been able to function without that strong lead. We are asking the Government to give us that lead along precisely the lines to which they are already committed and to put before us the proposals they have already put forward elsewhere. Surely that proposal cannot be regarded as hostile. Surely the Government can respond to the appeal, which the whole House, without distinction of party, makes to them, for a lead on this vital matter on which the majority of the House is agreed.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As the House knows, I was only yesterday released from very pressing business, and I can now only state, as the responsible head of the Government, what is the intention of this Government on the subject raised by this Amendment. My hon. Friend from Ireland made a very proper and a very moving appeal. I respond. He knows perfectly well, and every friend in this House of the voluntary schools knows perfectly well, that last year in our last Bill we tried to embody a compromise. It was not only a compromise; we understood it was an agreement. But, very much to our surprise, as soon as the agreement was published, one of the sides, which no doubt by our mistake we thought was a party to the agreement, proceeded to throw it over. For that reason among others the Bill had to be withdrawn. That shows what the Government wish to do. The Government know perfectly well that this question is pressing not only on account of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is flattering himself far too much when he puts so much emphasis on his own action. His own action led in every way to the raising of the financial position of the voluntary schools, although he did not face it.
There are two things to-day which raise the financial position of the voluntary schools. One is the Hadow report and the reorganisation of the schools, and the other is the proposal to raise the school-leaving age. We promised that we would have a conference between the voluntary school interests concerned. The first stage of the conference was an attempt to get an agreement among Members of the House. That was not successful. Then
the conference was started and that conference is still going on. I believe we can get agreement, but I am perfectly sure that, if this Amendment is carried, it is going to put obstacles in the way of an agreement.
Let hon. Members put themselves in the position of those who are negotiating now. They know perfectly well that the Government are keenly anxious to raise the school age. The carrying of the Amendment would mean that nothing can be done to raise the school age unless the parties now in conference agreed. All that is required is that not only will the parties be interested in voluntary schools, but that they must also be interested in the raising of the school age. Under the cloak of what to me is a legitimate religious claim, the whole position of the Bill is going to be knocked into smithereens. That is one thing. Surely the best way for all those who are interested in the voluntary schools is to accept, on account of the proof that we have given, the fact that the Government are sincere in effecting a financial arrangement with the voluntary schools. We are just as much interested and just as sincere in our views about that as are hon. Gentlemen opposite. When the Noble Lord talks—I forget his exact words—about the unpopularity of my right hon. Friend in a certain quarter—

Lord E. PERCY: No.

The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord said that my right hon. Friend was afraid of unpopularity coming from a certain quarter.

Lord E. PERCY: Not "a certain quarter."

The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord seems to forget that that certain quarter has also a conscience. Does the Noble Lord mean that in settling a conscientious problem he is going to do it by a majority? If he does, he really does not understand what a conscientious settlement is. In any event, so far as we are concerned, we do not believe in settling conscientious questions by a majority. They have to be settled—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot listen to an argument, I have no intention of pushing it upon them. This is a question of conscience so far as the Catholics and the Noncon-
formists are concerned, and in the settlement of that question of conscience it is all in the interest of good will and of harmony and of putting this Bill into operation when it is carried, if the Government are left with a free hand, as would happen if this Amendment were not pressed to a Division—if the Government were left with a free hand to carry on these negotiations, with the pledge definitely given that when the substance of a real agreement has been arrived at, when the outstanding problems—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), whose speech I heard, did not present a closed door, did not present a non possumus attitude; he assented to the general attitude. He has some points that appeal to my hon. Friends here. The way to settle the matter is not for our Catholic friends to ask for a repetition in their favour of power that has been used so oppressively against them, but to learn by their experience that the way to come to an agreement in these matters is by common consent. The Government are going to move everything they can to get that agreement, and when that agreement is got, the Government will produce legislation to carry it out in connection with the Bill now before us.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: There is one word which should be said in reply to the case which the Prime Minister has stated. He has made an eloquent plea for the settlement of this matter by agreement, for a conscientious settlement. He has pointed out on one side the harm that he thinks would be done to the prospect of a conscientious settlement by the acceptance of the Amendment. The Prime Minister has failed to point out, and perhaps has failed to realise, that if the Bill is carried in its present form without an Amendment of this kind, there is no reasonable possibility of the non-provided schools being able to do anything. I am not saying that as a mere statement; I want to explain in a few words the reason for it. It has been said that this is no problem of the moment, but that it has been continuing, with the reorganisation of education, for some time. That is perfectly true. But the position is that so far the managers of the non-provided schools have been able to keep up. If the burden of this Bill is thrown upon them they
will not be able, before September, 1932, to meet the necessities and the duties imposed upon them by the Bill. The result will be that if an agreement is not reached by 1932, and this Bill is passed, many of those schools would be killed. That is the answer to the Prime Minister's argument—an argument which should no more weigh with people whose desire is for a conscientious

settlement than the one which I put forward on the other side showing that the non-provided schools are in absolutely the same difficulty the same difficulty if the Bill is passed without the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 282.

Division No. 92.]
AYES.
[7.25 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gill, T. H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Gillett, George M.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Glassey, A. E.
Marcus, M.


Alpass, J. H.
Gossling, A. G.
Markham, S. F.


Ammon, Charles George
Gould, F.
Marshall, Fred


Angell, Sir Norman
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mathers, George


Arnott, John
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Matters, L. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Granville, E.
Messer, Fred


Ayles, Walter
Gray, Milner
Mills, J. E.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Milner, Major J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick


Barr, James
Groves, Thomas E.
Morley, Ralph


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Bellamy, Albert
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Benson, G.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mort, D. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hardie, George D.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Birkett, W. Norman
Harris, Percy A.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Blindell, James
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Muggerldge, H. T.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Bowen, J. w.
Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Palin, John Henry


Brockway, A. Fenner
Herriotts, J.
Paling, Wilfrid


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palmer, E. T.


Bromley, J.
Hollins, A.
Perry, S. F.


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, Daniel
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Horrabin, J. F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hudson, James H, (Huddersfield)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Brown, W. J, (Wolverhampton, West)
Jenkins, Sir William
Plcton-Turbervill, Edith


Burgess, F. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pole, Major D. G.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Price, M. P.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Eliand)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pybus, Percy John


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Charleton, H. C.
Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontyprid[...])
Rathbone, Eleanor


Chater, Daniel
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Raynes, W. R.


Church, Major A. G.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Richards, R.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Knight, Holford
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George ([...]. Molton)
Ritson, J


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Romeril, H. G.


Cowan, D. M.
Lathan, G.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rothschild, J. de


Daqgar, George
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Rowson, Guy


Dallas, George
Lawrence, Susan
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sanders, W. S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sandham, E.


Dickson, T.
Lees, J.
Sawyer, G. F.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scott, James


Duncan, Charles
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Scrymgeour, E.


Ede, James Chuter
Longbottom, A. W.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Lowth, Thomas
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sherwood, G. H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shield, George William


Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shillaker, J. F.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
McElwee, A.
Shinwell, E


Freeman, Peter
McEntee, V. L.
Short, Alfred (wednesbury)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McKinlay, A.
Simmons, C. J.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
MacLaren, Andrew
Simon, E. D (Manch'ter, Withington)


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)
West, F. R.


Sinkinson, George
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Westwood, Joseph


Sitch, Charles H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhitne)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Tillett, Ben
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Tout, W. J.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Townend, A. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Vaughan, D. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Snell, Harry
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Walker, J.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wallace, H. W.
Wise, E. F.


Sorensen, R.
Watkins, F. C.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondda)



Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wellock, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strauss, G. R.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Sutton, J. E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Thurtle.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harbord, A.


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hartington, Marquess of


Albery, Irving James
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, Henry C.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l., W.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Haycock, A. W.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Crookshank, Capt, H. C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Aske, Sir Robert
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Atholl, Duchess of
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Atkinson, C.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hoffman, P. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Maj. Geo, F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Balniel, Lord
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Beamish, Rear Admiral T. P. H.
Devlin, Joseph
Hurd, Percy A.


Beaumont, M. W.
Dixey, A. C.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Isaacs, George


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Iveagh, Countess of


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dukes, C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bevan, s. J. (Holborn)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Edmondson, Major A J.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Egan, W. H.
Kelly, W. T.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Elliot, Major Walter E,
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
England, Colonel A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)
Kinley, J.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Knox, Sir Alfred


Boyce, Leslie
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Bracken, B.
Ferguson, Sir John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt, Hon. George R.


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Fermoy, Lord
Lang, Gordon


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fielden, E. B.
Leach, W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Brothers, M.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Galbraith. J. F. W.
Lindley, Fred W.


Buchan, John
Ganzoni, Sir John
Little, Sir E. Graham


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Liewellin, Major J. J.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Butler, R. A.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsworth)


Butt. Sir Alfred
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Caine, Derwent Hail-
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Campbell, E. T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lymington, Viscount


Carver, Major W. H.
Grace, John
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McShane, John James


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Greaves-Lord, sir Walter
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mansfield, W.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Marley, J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Christle, J. A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meller, R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Moore, Sir Newton J, (Richmond)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hammersley, S. S.
Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. c. R. (Ayr)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hanbury, C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Colville, Major D. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)




Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Muff, G.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Thomson, Sir F.


Muirhead, A. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Naylor, T. E.
Salmon, Major I.
Tinne, J. A.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge]
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Toole, Joseph


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Train, J.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Savery, S. S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


O'Connor, T. J.
Sexton, Sir James
Turton, Robert Hugh


Oldfield, J. R.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Vaughan-Morgan, sir Kenyon


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Simms, Major-General J.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


O'Neill, Sir H.
Skelton, A. N.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Peake, Captain Osbert
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Penny, Sir George
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, Sydney R.


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron
White, H. G.


Potts, John S.
Somerset, Thomas
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Purbrick, R.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ramsbotham, H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Withers, Sir John James


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Remer, John R.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Womersley, W. J.


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.



Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Sullivan, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Mr. Scurr and Mr. Logan.


Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Leader of the House if he proposes to proceed with the Bill to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: Really, I am rather surprised. I forget if the right hon. Gentleman was in at the conclusion of the Debate on the Amendment, but there is no principle at all involved in the Division between us. The whole question was this—whether a certain guarantee ought to be put in for the voluntary schools. There was no question about intention. The whole House is agreed regarding intention. We believed, and we still believe, that it would have been better if the Government had been left a free hand to negotiate. The Government will continue its negotiations, and we will do our best to overcome the difficulty that has been put in our way by the Amendment which has been carried. Beyond that, there is nothing to be said.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that the Amendment has not been carried yet.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Qualifications and form of claim for receipt of maintenance allowances.)

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment which I call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha:)—
In page 4, line 25, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the paragraph and to insert instead thereof the words:
the mother of the child, save that where the local education authority is satisfied that the child is living with the father and not with the mother, or that for some other reason the mother is not a proper recipient of the maintenance allowance, such maintenance allowance shall be paid to the father.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I feel that I must do so for the purpose of representing to the Government the situation in which the House finds itself. The Prime Minister has said that no question of principle is involved. That statement surprises me. I was present during the last remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made before the Division, and if he will allow me to say so—

Mr. McKINLAY: On a point of Order. I understand, Sir, that you had called the next Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the Noble Lord that he can only move the Adjournment of the Debate if there is an Amendment before the House. At present there is no Question before the House.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I will leave what I was saying with the remark that I was present when the Prime Minister spoke, and, I, certainly, understood him to say that this was a matter of the very greatest substance. But in any case I wish to represent to the Prime Minister that it is absurd to ask the House at this moment to proceed with the Third Reading of the Bill. This Bill has been brought forward as the pièce de résistance of the whale Government programme, and the Government have insisted all along on the, essential character of this Bill being that it is to put pressure on local authorities and voluntary schools, in order that they may get ready for the raising of the school-leaving age. Now, it has been decided by the House that this Bill shall not take effect until certain assistance is given to the non-provided schools. We have no knowledge—indeed I think the Government have not been able to make up their minds on the question—as to whether they are prepared to give such assistance to the voluntary schools. It is a question in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is involved. It is a question of finance as well as of policy. Are the Government prepared, this year or next year, to pass legislation pledging themselves to make grants to voluntary schools?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: They have said so.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon, they said that, provided agreement was reached, they would be prepared—[HON. MEMBERS: "Substantial agreement"]—Yes, they said that, if substantial agreement were reached, they would be prepared to bring forward a Measure authorising that. Now the House has not given them a mandate to introduce a Measure of that kind. It has only said to them, "You cannot have your raising of the school-leaving age, until you have done this." Do they intend to do it? What are we to ask the Government to do? To make an offhand pronouncement as to their future legislative programme, as to the character of the Bill which they are going to bring forward, or whether they are going to bring forward any Bill at all. They cannot be expected to make up their minds during the next two or three hours before the Third Reading.
Let me say this. From the beginning of the proceedings on this Bill, from the announcement, 18 months ago, of the policy of raising the school-leaving age, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister and the Government have consistently shirked every practical problem that arose in connection with the raising of the age. That is the reason for their defeat to-night. It was obvious 18 months ago, and every member of the Government knew that something of this kind would have to be done. But they had no idea of what they were going to do. They rejected, to start with, every proposal on which I had already got half agreement before I left the Board of Education. They threw all those assets overboard and the very men with whom I was negotiating amicably, and with whom I was on the verge of agreement, are the very men who are to-day signing manifestos against any sort of settlement. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government have destroyed the whole of the good will—no, I will not say that, because there is plenty of it yet, but they have destroyed a large part of the good will, of that practical and effective good will which existed on this subject, and they have done it not through any malice or wrong policy, but simply because they have put off again and again and shilly shallied and refused to face the necessity of making a decision.
They want to go on with the Third Reading for the same reason. They say, "If we have the Third Reading at once, we cannot be expected to make any statement as to the attitude we are going to take towards the decision of the House. We shall be able to slip out of it somehow." The Prime Minister will be able to make one of those beautifully benign and confusing speeches, of which, if he will allow me to say so, he is a master. That is the object of the Government in trying to make the House sit longer, but I submit that in these circumstances, when we have reached this, the crown and the inevitable end of 18 months' shirking on the part of the Government, the House ought to be allowed to adjourn in order to consider the new situation which confronts it in regard to this matter.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the best argument against the Motion which the Noble Lord has just moved is his
own speech, which was simply a continuation of his speech before the Division, and I hope that some of those who have taken part in the Division and produced the present result will benefit by their experience. I repeat what I said before the Division, that there is no question of principle involved. [Interruption.] There is no question of principle involved. The Government in their last Bill introduced a Clause dealing with financial aid to voluntary schools, but they withdrew it because it was not possible to agree upon it. They have tried the same again. It is still in operation. The conference is still going on, and to-morrow I myself am going to take part in it; and all that has happened is that the House has said, "We want to put in a Clause or to amend a Clause providing that, until another Bill is passed, this Bill shall not come into operation."
We are in the hands of the House in a matter like that, but, when the right hon. Gentleman says he is not prepared to deliver a Third Reading speech on the Bill, what was the speech which we have just heard? If he will allow me to flatter him, as he was good enough to flatter me, it was a very model of a rather bad-tempered Third Reading speech. [Interruption.] It really was, and the right hon. Gentleman the Noble Lord did himself a grave injustice by putting up such an excuse as he did, when he proposed that the House should not proceed with the Third Reading. He himself had come to an agreement, when this Amendment was on the Paper, that at our sitting to-day we were going to get the rest of the stages of the Bill. It is only in accordance with that agreement. We accept the Amendment that has been made. We are sorry it has been made, but it is accepted, and now we shall go on with the Third Reading.

Lord E. PERCY: On a point of Order. The Prime Minister has made a personal imputation against me that I am trying, by this Motion, to get out of an agreement into which I personally entered. If he will consult the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, that right hon. Gentleman will tell him that the agreement to finish the report and Third Reading in one day was made before the right hon. Gentleman sug-
gested that this Amendment should be postponed till after the Recess. I got up when we agreed to that postponement and said that, of course, that must affect to a certain extent our agreement as to taking the Report and Third Reading in one day, and it was then informally said, "We will talk about that through the usual channels." I am sorry the Prime Minister, without any notice, should have seen fit to accuse me of a personal breach of honour, which I repudiate absolutely.

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not a question of a breach of honour. I have been informed right through that this stage was to be given to the remaining part of the Report stage of the Bill and Third Reading, and that it was part and parcel of the agreement. If I have done the right hon. Gentleman any wrong, I am very sorry, but that is certainly my impression, and more than my impression; that is what I was told, and that is why we have suspended the 11 o'clock rule to-night.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I urge on the Prime Minister the extraordinary position in which the House is placed? This is the first occasion on which I remember a Government, on its defeat, not being prepared at least to allow the House of Commons time to consider the situation, and it must be evident, in spite of anything the right hon. Gentleman has said, that this was a most important point affecting the House of Commons. It is, whatever he may say, a most vital question of principle, and I submit that it is only fair to those who represent the Free Churches of this country that they should have an opportunity of considering this question before the Third Reading is taken. The right hon. Gentleman might bring about, as he said, in consultation tomorrow an agreement fair to all parties, but surely he is only placing another party in a most difficult position to-night by forcing the Third Reading through. I submit that the normal course—and after all we expect the traditions of this House, with a minority Government, to be respected—is that the House should adjourn and that we should have time to consider the situation.

Mr. J. JONES: As one of those contumacious persons who took part in the last division, much to my regret from the standpoint of political convenience, I want to say that I voted oh the ground of principle, as a member of the Church and a representative of a constituency where the people have made the greatest possible sacrifices to maintain their own schools. All that we have asked for is fair play, which I believed it was possible to achieve before to-night, but I discovered that it had been delayed, and as a result of that delay I was converted to the position of going into the Lobby against those with whom I always work, and hope to continue to work, right until the end of the chapter, on every other question affecting working class conditions and life.
But now we are asked to turn the Bill down altogether. It is simply "a little bit of sugar for the bird," this Motion that we should now adjourn. The idea is to kill the time necessary for the carrying of the other parts of the Bill. I know that there are differences between us, but the time will arrive when those differences will be overcome. If our friends opposite imagine that because some of us have gone into the Lobby against the Government they are going to carry us with them on future occasions, they are much mistaken. Some of us have advocated for nearly 40 years the only one system of education that we think is desirable. We have said that either the State must be responsible for the ordinary education of the people and the Church must provide the religious education in their own way or else all bodies must be treated alike. Unfortunately, we discover that owing to fundamental differences existing between the various religious bodies, it is almost impossible to get an agreement. It is a case of "Live horse, and you will get grass," so far as some are concerned.
First, you get the Church of England to agree, then you get the Roman Catholics to agree, then you get the local education authorities to agree, then you get the teachers to agree, and then another body comes along and says it cannot agree. They have a perfect right to their convictions. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) is steeped to the lips in nonconformity, but his nonconformity consists in conformity, so far as other
people are concerned who do not hold the same view as he holds. They must obey the law, but he can claim the right to disobey. He was a supporter of the conscientious objectors to the Education Act of 1902. [Interruption.] I am only saying what is a matter of history. He gave us some history, and now I am giving him some. He stood for the right to refuse to pay taxes because you did not agree with the law. He was a champion of that policy. We are not asking a right to refuse to pay taxes. You say, "Why should we put Rome on the rates?" We have had nonconformity on the rates since 1870. The education in the schools has been nothing else but nonconformity on the rates, yet when some—

Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) that, on the Motion for the Adjournment, the question of religious education must not be discussed.

Mr. JONES: This Motion is to delay legislation, and so far as that is its object those of us who voted against the Government in this instance because of clear-cut conscientious convictions want to see the Bill go through. We have registered an opinion as to this particular part of the Bill, but we want to see the main body of the Bill go through, and we shall support the Government against this Motion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), in moving that the House should now adjourn, had two perfectly clear objects in view. The first was to give the Government an opportunity to reconsider the position so far as it affects the actual legislation, and to enable them to address themselves to the new situation which was created. But the second object of my right hon. Friend, which was also aimed at by the Leader of the Opposition when he pointedly asked the Prime Minister his intentions, was to emphasise and make abundantly plain the humiliation of His Majesty's Government and the extremely loose and inconsequent mariner in which they are conducting the business of the country. I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman just before the Division. Then, this was an Amendment of real consequence. Then, it was one of the gravest issues which could possibly affect the whole course of this
8.0 p.m.
Bill. The Government placed their Whips on in the Lobbies. They summoned their supporters from all parts of the country for the Division which they knew was to take place, I agree, not on party lines, and yet it is a Division which has in it a measure of direct censure, because, as we have been told, the situation created this afternoon is the result of 18 months of complete failure to deal in a straightforward or in a direct manner with this particular religious difficulty. The Government face the Division, they are defeated by over 30 votes, and then the Prime Minister rises in his place utterly unabashed, the greatest living master of falling without hurting himself, and airily assures us that nothing has happened. The Government, it appears, are delighted to fall in with the wishes of the House. Their only regret is that the House has not conveyed its opinion to them in a somewhat less forcible manner. So we are to go on with the discussions on the Bill, although undoubtedly a first-class impediment has been placed upon its further progress by the vote which the House has given in such surprising numbers. We may go on with the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman will continue leading this House—we admit, of course, the difficulties in which a minority Government finds itself—and it will continue to afford precedents which will certainly enable Administrations in the future, if they choose, to proceed week after week and month after month without one scrap of credit or reputation or consistency. My right hon. Friend was actuated by these objects in moving that we should adjourn. The objects have been fully attained now, and, if the Government say that all is exactly the same, that nothing has happened, that they are perfectly prepared to accept the affront, that they do not even wish a breathing space, an interlude in order to re-examine the position—if they choose to say that, now that we have effectively made our point from this side of the House, we shall not trouble to set them right, and shall leave them effectively to stew in their own juice.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, to leave out from the
word "be," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words:
the mother of the child, save that where the local education authority is satisfied that the child is living with the father and not with the mother, or that for some other reason the mother is not a proper recipient of the maintenance allowance, such maintenance allowance shall be paid to the father.
The House now passes from a decision of importance to a decision of comparatively minor importance. We have now to make up our minds to whom the maintenance allowance payable under this Bill is to be paid. There are three possible courses. The money may be paid to the child, to the father, or to the mother. It is important in any event that the House should come to a clear conclusion as to which of these three it desires to make the recipient of the money. The original proposal in the Bill was that the maintenance allowance should be paid to the father. I had an Amendment down on the Committee stage to make it payable to the mother. Unfortunately, it was not called, and an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) was called, and was accepted by the Government. That Amendment was that the money should be paid either to the father or to the mother, and, in the event of a dispute, the local education authority was to determine. Whatever the merits of paying the money either to the father or to the mother may be, there can surely be no virtue in setting up the education authority as an arbiter in a dispute between father and mother. The hon. Member for the English Universities, in the discussion on the Committee stage, admitted that she preferred my Amendment, and has accordingly put her name down in support of it. The right hon. Gentleman will observe that it is supported by Members of all parties.
I need not argue the case at length, because it was argued on the Committee stage, and the wish of the House should have been made apparent to the right hon. Gentleman. In a nutshell, the case is this. These maintenance allowances are compensation paid to the child for depriving him of his earning power. In other words, it ought to be paid to the child, as it is by the London County Council. If we are not to pay it to the child, we must make up our minds what
the child would do with this money if it were wages instead of maintenance allowance. Undoubtedly—and no one can deny the proposition—the child would take the money home to its mother. That has been the invariable practice throughout industrial districts. I do not know what possible justification there can be for paying it to the father. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does. What possible justification there can be for saying that it shall be paid to the father or to the mother, and that they shall take their private disputes to the education authority, I also do not know. Therefore, I invite the House to enable this allowance, as it is displaced wages, to be taken by the child where its wages would be taken, namely, to the mother, and thus recognise the right of motherhood to keep its children, and to recognise also that the mother by experience has the best knowledge of how to dispose of the money.

Captain CAZALET: I beg to second the Amendment.
Since this matter was discussed on a former occasion, I have tried to consult some of those who have had experience of the working of this matter in the London County Council district, and the unanimous opinion is that, if this contribution is to be given, it should be given to the mother rather than to the father. What are we doing in giving this contribution? If we regard it as a kind of bribe in order to make this Measure popular, there is something to be said for giving it to the father. If, on the other hand, the intention of making this contribution is, as I believe it, to give something which will make it easier for the family to give a little more food to the children, and to supply the family with greater facilities for giving whatever is necessary to the growing child, the logical, natural and reasonable thing is to make the contribution to the mother. Who has to buy the food and purchase the clothes? In every case it must be the mother. Therefore, if this financial assistance is to be given, as I believe that it is the intention of the Government to give it, because they desire to improve the condition of the children who are to remain at school an extra year, the common-sense thing is that it shall be given to the mother and not to the father.

Mr. MILLS: I associate myself with this Amendment because I believe that, in principle, it is something that really ought to be done. That perhaps needs some explanation in view of our attitude towards an Amendment of a similar character with regard to unemployment benefit. It is as well to point out where the two things differ. In the case of unemployment pay to a boy or girl, the boy or girl has left school, has secured employment and has contributed for the unemployment benefit. Consequently, it is a matter of principle that, whatever benefit is paid, should be paid to the person who has been taxed directly for it. In the case of school maintenance allowance, however, the parents are the people who have been making sacrifices from the days of infancy up to the time when this help is to be given. The father's contribution towards the household expenses comes out of the industrial wages that he is able occasionally to enjoy. It follows obviously that the whole of the expenses of the household is the work of the mother, and this allowance should go directly to her.

Miss RATHBONE: I would appeal very strongly to the House, and especially to the President, to accept this Amendment. It may be said that I am inconsistent to do so after I moved the Amendment which was accepted on the Committee stage. I made it perfectly plain, however, that I moved that Amendment merely because I thought that it had a better chance of being accepted by the House than the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend to-night. In the discussion that took place, it was pointed out that, as the Clause now stands, it is open to the objection that in a considerable proportion of cases the local authority will have to make the decision. In the form in which it is now proposed, the allowance will in the normal case go to the mother, and the local authority will only have to make a decision where the mother is not a proper recipient for the allowance. May I say where the difference lies? In the large majority of cases no particular difficulty may arise under the Clause as it stands, but I think it is too often forgotten that we are dealing with very large numbers, with 400,000 married couples every year, and a different 400,000 each year, because the child only draws the allowance for one year and even a
very small percentage of cross-grained fathers may cause trouble. As the Clause now stands there is the fear that it may be the general practice of local authorities to choose the father rather than the mother in the case of dispute. If this Bill were placing a fresh liability on the father there might be some excuse for saying that he was the normal person to draw the allowance, but the allowance really replaces the earnings which the child would otherwise bring in and, in the normal way, hand over to its mother, and she as the person who distributes the family income, is the natural person to receive that allowance.
I appeal to the House to put aside all those prejudices and considerations of tactics and of one party scoring against another which influence so many of our decisions and put themselves in the place of those who will have to deal with the facts of the case. Supposing difficulty arises in only 1 per cent, of eases, that means 1,000 mothers per year affected; if 2 per cent, of cases are affected, it means 2,000 households are concerned. We ought to establish what is almost a principle, but what is too often ignored, and that is that the mother is performing a service to her children fully equivalent to the service which the father performs in earning the money. Even to-day there are too many who seem to think the payment of the cash is the most important thing, think the father, because he earns the money in the wage market, is the important person in the household and that the services which the mother performs all day long do not count.
I believe that this proposal, if carried, will bring great gratification to millions of working women, who will see in it a recognition of their too often ignored services to their family. In those exceptional cases relatively, though they will be numerous cases absolutely, where the father may be drunken or careless, the mother will be able to claim the payment of the allowance, and it is more likely that it will be expended for the benefit of the child. It may be said that there are careless and drunken mothers as well as careless and drunken fathers, and I do not doubt it, but the mother is the person who, in the long run, has the expenditure of the money, and we shall diminish the chances of leakage by pay-
ing it to her direct, because in considerably fewer cases will there be an abuse of the money if it is paid to her. appeal to the President to put aside any question of whether it is or is not a little difficult to make a change in an Amendment which has already been accepted and to think of the vital facts, think of the human beings to whom this apparently trifling decision is going to make a very real difference in the conduct of their lives and the expenditure of their weekly budget week by week year after year.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: It is rather a pity, perhaps, that this Amendment has been moved, because in Committee we discussed this whole matter at considerable length, and the hon. Lady herself proposed an Amendment which entirely modified the original proposal. It is a little difficult on the Report stage, and when there are very few people in the House, to bring forward this Amendment. It is quite true that those who are present have spoken in favour of making the further change—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not all of us!"]—but if we had Members here in larger numbers we might hear a, good many expressions of opinion of a different kind. I would remind the House that the proposal now in the Bill is rather of the nature of a compromise, but although it was a compromise a considerable number of Members voted against it. I do not claim that this is a, matter of principle—of course, it is not—but, after all, there is a good deal to be said for the father. It is not only a question of the receipt of the money, it is a question of the claim to the money, and, after all, the father is the person who is responsible for the maintenance of the child. He is the economic head of the household and he knows, as a rule, what the wage is. There is no reason why he should not arrange for the money to he paid to the wife; there would be no difficulty about that, and no doubt it would be done in a very large number of cases; and I really think, if we are considering whether the man or the woman ought to have the responsibility, that it is rather a good division to leave it to them to settle it themselves. I thought it was rather a good suggestion that the hon. Lady put forward in Committee and got carried. It seemed the kind of adjustment which it was wise to
make, and therefore I very much hope we shall maintain the present arrangement.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I wish to support the Minister in the attitude he has taken up on this Amendment. I am rather in a difficulty, because in Committee I was not satisfied with the Amendment moved by the hon. Lady for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), which the Minister accepted and embodied in the Bill. I criticised her Amendment because I thought it encouraged disputes. I thought we might find the mother and the father hurrying to arrive first at the education office to claim the maintenance allowance, and that the education authorities might be involved in the investigation of an unnecessary number of disputes. I did not, however, have the opportunity of speaking to an Amendment which I had put down which would have preserved to the local authority the right of paying the maintenance allowance to the mother if they were satisfied that the father was not making good use of it. If I have to choose between the Bill as amended and this further Amendment I must unquestionably pronounce for the Bill, and I would appeal to the hon. Lady for the English Universities not to think that anyone who votes against her ignores or belittles the very great value of the work of the mother in the home, particularly of the mother who does all the domestic work and is the sole nurse of her children.
There are, however, two considerations which we must keep clearly in mind which must outweigh what seems to me a relatively sentimental consideration. In the first place, the legal responsibility for maintaining a child is on the father. So long as that is the law of the land, I do not see how one can possibly say that the maintenance allowance is to be paid, in the first case, to the mother, however much we may think it wise to have safeguards to ensure that the money is paid to the mother if the father is not making good use of it. In the second place, I submit that it is fundamental to retain the father's responsibility. I go further than the Minister and say that it is a basic principle that we should retain the responsibility of the father for the maintenance of his children.
Men have more interests outside their homes than women, and it is more possible for them to forget the responsibility of the home than for the mother who is there all the day long and sees its needs. Therefore it is all the more essential to keep this responsibility on the father. Lately I read in a book which was written by someone who shares the views of the President of the Board of Education—Mr. Bertrand Russell—a very striking picture of the deterioration which he foresees if the legal responsibility for the maintenance of children were taken away from the father under a system of family allowances paid to the mother. Nobody has drawn a clearer picture of the lack of interest that would follow in the case of many men in their relations with their wives and families under these circumstances. I think those considerations outweigh the arguments which have been put forward, and I believe that the Bill does provide a safeguard against the negligent father.

Mr. HARRIS: I approach this subject, not from a sentimental, but from a practical point of view. I know that it is very often inconvenient far the father of the child to be in the home to receive the maintenance allowance. The father very seldom goes to the school to hear what is going on in connection with the education of his child. It has already been pointed out that for many years the London County Council have been granting maintenance allowances, and in this case the allowance is not paid either to the father or to the mother, but it is paid into an account in the Savings Bank, and it is made clear that the money belongs to the child. The person who comes to collect the money under this proposal will be the mother who will have to come to the school and will thus come in contact with the teacher. It is not a practical proposal for parents, some of whom would have to travel miles, to collect the small sums which will be distributed through the teachers. It is undesirable that a father should leave his job to collect this allowance once a fortnight. For these reasons, I say, from practical experience, that this is not a practical proposal. This allowance is money which has not been earned either by the father or by the mother, and it is given to the child as compensation.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I am glad that the President of the Board of Education is not going to accept this Amendment for which no sufficient case has been made out. If it is a fact that the mother is the person most suitable to collect the money that can be arranged under the Bill as it stands at present, as the mother would apply. Only in the case of a dispute can the local authority decide, and if there is no dispute then the mother in 99 cases out of 100 will receive the money. This Bill puts certain obligations on the parents, and, if they are not carried out, the parents can be prosecuted and a fine imposed. The person who would be held liable would be the father and not the mother. I know from my experience, as ex-Chairman of a School Attendance Committee that, unless the woman has money of her own, in the ordinary working-class case the responsibility is on the father. The punishment for failure to obey the law is placed on the father, and we should give him the money. This does not matter very much, because in a good home the money would go where it ought to go, and in the case of the bad home there are many ways of dealing with the matter.

Mr. MANDER: I am sorry that the President of the Board of Education has not seen his way to accept this Amendment. During the Committee stage the Amendment was not selected, and there was no opportunity of discussing it, so that the right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to say what the views of Members might be on the question. The Noble Lady the Member for Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) referred to the question of the legal responsibility of the husband, but I submit that this Amendment has nothing to do with that question. We are dealing here with a new thing, and we ought to deal with it on the basis of justice and reason. I believe that a good deal of the opposition to the Amendment is based on the old idea belonging to the time when the father and the husband had all the rights, and the mother had very few, and it seems to me that this is a very good opportunity, and only a fair one, to change that aspect of the matter and to give the mother a right to which she is absolutely entitled by all the circumstances of the case.
I know it is said that when there is a dispute between the mother and the father they can go to the local education authority to have it decided, but, unfortunately, this is one of those cases where you get a certain unconscious feeling of sex bias, and it will be found that the education authority is called upon to decide the matter with an overwhelming majority of men, who will be inclined, by historical association and tradition, to balance over in the direction of the father, and in many cases where the money ought to go to the mother it will automatically go to the father because it has been the practice and custom to hand things over to the father in the past.
I believe that the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman is taking up is going to be widely resented by women and mothers all over the country. It is said that this Bill is unpopular, and it is unpopular. The people among whom it is unpopular, as all of us know who represent poor districts in different parts of the country, are the mothers. They are continually asking what this Bill is going to mean, and whether it is going to deprive them of money that they very much need. They are the people who have every right to have this money delivered straight to them, not through any other channel, and to be protected from any risk of not having it handed to them at all. The right hon. Gentleman, by accepting this Amendment, would not only be doing an essentially fair thing, but would be doing a very popular thing, and I do not suppose that he is entirely disinterested in the question of the popularity of a Measure of this kind. The Bill needs a stimulus of some kind after the tragic disaster which has certainly befallen it to-night, whatever the Prime Minister may say about it.
I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), when she pointed out that the work done by the mother in the household is certainly quite as valuable as anything done by the father in the factory. That has not been recognised in the past. The mother works without any regular system of minimum wage or remuneration, she has no fixed hours, and yet, in her task of training up the rising generation from the time when they are born to the time
when they go out into the world, she is doing something which is of the utmost possible value to the State. From the newer point of view of giving women what they ought to have, namely, the fullest political and civil rights, now that they have votes on an equality with men, I think that the arguments are entirely in favour of accepting the Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman will be doing an unwise and, I am sure, a very unpopular thing if he rejects it.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: No one can accuse me of not being a supporter of women's interests, but, beyond that, one must consider the common sense of the matter. The law as it, stands makes the father liable in the first instance for the maintenance of the child, and it is going to be rather an odd thing if it is to be decided that, while the father remains liable, he is not to be the person to receive money which is paid primarily to the child for its own maintenance. Although it is with great reluctance that I differ from the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), I really think that the common sense of the matter must be left as it is.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I desire to support my hon. Friend who has just spoken. In view of the fact that the father is legally responsible, there is no doubt in my mind that he should be given the first right to receive this money. I regret to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), with whom I have had many discussions in the Education Committee of the London County Council, that this money is really intended for the children. To my mind it is intended as compensation to the parents in view of the fact that their children will not be able to earn the money which they would earn were they in work, and, in view of that fact also, I consider that the money ought undoubtedly to go to the father. It may be that there are, and we all know that there are, fathers who would squander the money which should be spent to better purpose, but, at the same time we also know of cases where, unfortunately, mothers would do the same thing. The main point is, however, that the person who in law would be held responsible for the maintenance of the family should also be the person in the
first instance to receive this money. In making this suggestion, we do not for a moment wish to cast any aspersions on the mothers. We have all realised, many of us long ago and some more recently, that it is really the women of the country who rule the household, but that is not always the case with regard to the finances of the home. Therefore, I should not like to see this Amendment accepted, more especially, one might almost say, because it was put into the Bill at the suggestion of the very people who are now pressing for its alteration. If they cannot be of one mind for more than a few weeks at a time, I do not think it is worth while changing the Bill just to suit them.

Miss RATHBONE: On a point of personal explanation, may I say that, as the President of the Board of Education knows perfectly well, I put down at the very beginning an Amendment in the same terms as the present Amendment, and only withdrew it in favour of the subsequent Amendment because I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was more likely to accept the latter?

Mr. GRAY: I do not think that this matter ought to be left just where it has been left by the last two speeches, which give a quite incorrect impression. The impression, apparently, in the minds of the hon. Members is that the father alone is responsible for the maintenance of the family—

Mr. CAMPBELL: Primarily.

Mr. GRAY: The whole argument is destroyed by the use of the word "primarily." In law the parents are responsible, and the resting of the responsibility upon the father is merely due to the fact that in the majority of cases the father has control of the income. Wherever the mother has control of the income, she is, in law, equally responsible with the father, and there is no justification for the suggestion that it is merely the father, or even primarily the father, who is responsible. In a case in which the father had no income, and the mother happened to have the income and was maintaining the husband as well as the children, the process of law would be directed against the mother and not against the father. Another point which the two hon. Members have not realized
is that the Bill does not provide for the payment of this money to the father. The actual provision of the Bill is that either the father or the mother may apply for it. Indeed, both of them may apply, and in that case—

Mr. CAMPBELL: Then why alter it?

Mr. GRAY: I will tell the hon. Member why. Both may apply, and in that case the education authority has to decide which of them shall have it. I do not think that that is a duty which an education authority ought to be asked to undertake. It may in some cases be perfectly simple. In a case where the father or the mother was, shall we say, a drunkard, no doubt the education authority could decide quite easily; but, on the other hand, you may have a great many cases where both parents are equally respectable and equaly entitled to have it, but, perhaps because of some internal domestic dispute, both apply. I have been a member of an education authority, and I should very much dislike having to hear a domestic dispute or to decide whether the father or the mother should receive the money.
The real argument is that in nearly every case it is the mother who will have to spend the money. It is provided simply because the child is now not able to earn money. A child who earns money and takes it home in the great majority of cases that would come under the Bill would hand it to the mother and not to the father. We have moved the Amendment because we consider that, when you are providing money for the maintenance of children because they are being retained at school, the preson to whom it ought to go in the first place is the person who normally will have the spending of the money. I would make no general charge against the father, but it is very natural for a father who is receiving an extra 5s. from the education authority to say to his wife, "If I give you 4s. and keep the other shilling, that will be fair." I should hope the whole of the 5s. would go to the provision of the essential necessities of the child and go directly to the parent who will have to spend the money.
I think the Amendment is desirable. I cannot conceive what harm it could possibly do. If the hon. Members who have just spoken are so keen on their
legal point, I will draw their attention to the fact that the mere receiving of the money would make the mother liable, to the extent of the money, for the maintenance of the child. She has then an income of her own for that purpose. On the legal point, I should say it is very desirable to accept the Amendment. I think we are entitled to have from the representative of the Board of Education some clear indication why he refuses the Amendment.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The last speaker has been very reluctant to cast on the local education authority the duty of deciding the matter as between the father and the mother, but the local education authority already is obliged to decide in two important cases, and it has at its disposal an officer who can give information which makes the decision extremely easy.

Mr. GRAY: I should like to get this point perfectly clear. Do I understand that the education authority has any case under the existing law—if so, it is not within my knowledge—in which it has two people entitled by law to make claims upon it and then has to decide between those two people?

Mr. SOMERVILLE: That may not be so up to the present, but my point is, that under the Bill as it stands, there are two cases, to which the hon. Gentleman raises no objection, in which the local authority has to carry out the duty to which the hon. Member objects. In view of the fact that the father is primarily responsible, I think it would be better to allow the Bill to stand as it does.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Morgan Jones.]

Duchess of ATHOLL: We must all agree that the Third Reading of the Bill has lost a great deal of its reality, because no one can say when it will come into operation, but as it has been decreed that we are to proceed, in spite of what has been called the affront to the Government, with this somewhat nebulous discussion, I wish to take the opportunity of referring in some greater detail to a subject which I have dealt with on more
than one occasion. Broadly speaking, the opposition that we have offered to the Bill has been based on two grounds. One is that we have desired to retain for local education authorities a freedom which is a very happy feature of our educational system. We have desired that they should retain that freedom in regard to the date at which the school-leaving age would be brought into operation, because we recognise that the dates at which it can he brought into operation as between large boroughs and scattered rural areas may well vary considerably. We have also desired to retain for local education authorities freedom to grant, within specified limits, the power of exempting children from school attendance for necessary work in fields or at home or elsewhere. We have been quite unsuccessful in our efforts to secure the maintenance of that freedom.
But I think the main ground on which we have been opposed to the Bill is that the season at which it has been brought forward is unpropitious from various points of view—in the first place, on account of the high birth-rate in 1920, which means that, if the school-leaving age is raised before the 1920 children have passed out, it will be necessary to provide much more accommodation and many more teachers than will be necessary after that date, which means waste both of money and teachers. Then it has been said that it is unpropitious to bring forward the Bill at a time when there are still some 10,000 classes with more than 50 children in them, which, if they are to be eliminated from our schools, must make a tremendous demand for an increased supply of teachers, a demand which seems to be quite incompatible with the profession being able to meet the demand for the school-leaving age itself. Then there are demands caused by the reorganisation of the schools, which has been in progress for the last four or five years. Again, we have pointed out that, when trade is more depressed than we have ever known it, and unemployment is standing at a figure which we have never known even in times of great industrial crisis, when it is admitted that the burden of taxation is preventing that trade recovery for which we all long and which we know to be the only permanent alleviation of our unemployment problem, is a most ill-chosen
moment to propose to put on the shoulders of the taxpayer a burden which, if one adds to it the cost of reorganisation that is essential if the raising of the age is to be of benefit, must add a very large sum to our educational expenditure.
I do not see how the reorganisation, plus the raising of the age, taking England and Scotland together, can add less than £10,000,000 a year to our expenditure. A sum of £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 is admitted, I think. It is admitted that the estimate given in the Financial Memorandum does not include the cost of reorganisation. Then we have said that it is impossible for the local authorities to make the necessary arrangements within the time allowed. It may be said that that argument is not so strong since the operation of the Bill has been delayed 18 months. Though that may make some alleviation of the position as regards school accommodation, I believe that it will make very little difference to the position in regard to the supply of teachers. After all, the question as to whether sufficient teachers can be produced to teach the largely increased numbers of children—suitable teachers to give them the suitable instruction—is the crux of the matter, and therefore I want to deal only with that aspect of the question this evening.
We desire, before the Bill leaves this House, some reason to be given for the belief of the President of the Board of Education that he can have the necessary number of teachers by the stated date. He told us in the summer that 3,500 teachers will be needed for normal expansion alone in 1931–32. That means for the continual reduction of large classes, and, I presume, the needs of reorganisation. He says that there are 3,500 needed for normal expansion during 1931–32 and no less than 5,000 for normal expansion during the year 1932–33. He has further told us since the postponement of the Bill that early in the year 1933 some 3,500 more teachers will be needed because of the raising of the school age, and that by 1934 no less than 5,000, making, with the figures given for normal expansion, a total of 13,000 within two or three years from now. The right hon. Gentleman said in May that he had 4,000 extra teachers to come out of the training colleges and
9.0 p.m.
university training departments; 1,250 would come out in 1930–31, 950 in 1931–32, and 1,800 in the following year. He repeated those figures on 11th December in Committee. They constituted the 4,000 which he told us he expected. On 6th November, in reply to a question, he gave rather different figures, from which it appears that from both training colleges and university training departments in the first year there would be 969 and not 1,250, and 829 in the second year and not 950. That means a total of 1,798 for the first two years. Again, we have to remember that most of the students trained in university training departments prefer secondary school work to primary school work, and that therefore that number ought not to be relied upon largely or definitely for work in primary schools. The only teachers, therefore, who can be counted upon out of that number are those in training colleges. They number 1,498. That means that roughly 1,500 are in the training colleges being trained for elementary school work. In reply to another question on the 11th December, when I was trying to ascertain the grounds upon which he had said in the summer he would have 1,800 additional students in training in the third year to complete his 4,000 additional students, he gave the very vague and indefinite reply that then it was too early to give any close estimate of the number of students to be admitted for training next autumn, but that he hoped that, when the Bill was passed, it would be possible to arrange for a further extension of the facilities available.
I submit that an answer in those terms is something very different from the 4,000 student teachers definitely expected to come out of training colleges and university training departments in a couple of years from now, in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance both on 29th May and again in the course of the Committee stage. In May he also spoke of the 4,000 women who would be retained in the teaching service on marriage. In December when he spoke he was not so confident. He did not expect then more than a large number of those 4,000. There, again, we are left vague as to the number he actually expects. On 29th May he spoke of 1,000 teachers who usually retire every year
on pension, and suggested that that 1,000 might be retained in the service. On 11th December he told the Committee that he hoped to get many hundreds from the 1,000 pensionable teachers and from married women teachers who might be called back. Therefore, I think it is quite plain that on 11th December in Committee the right hon. Gentleman was watering down very much the hopes he had raised in his speech on 29th May. In May, however, the main supply to which he was looking was the number of 5,000 teachers whom, he said, the normal expansion would provide. He pointed out that in the last three years 5,000 additional teachers had been absorbed into the teaching profession of England and Wales, and said that he had no reason to believe that the normal expansion of the profession would not produce 5,000 additional teachers in the next three years. On 11th December he explained rather more explicitly what he meant by the normal expansion of the profession. It appeared from that that he meant that the training colleges would produce that additional number of teachers. He holds that the 5,000 teachers absorbed into the teaching profession is due to the normal expansion of the training colleges, which, he said, had been going on prior to the year 1929, when he took special steps to put in an extra number of students. Since then I have asked the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was 10th to interrupt the Noble Lady until I was quite sure that I could do so. On the Third Reading only matters contained in the Bill can be discussed, and nothing about teachers.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Surely to enable discussion of the Bill it is in order to try and show that it is impossible to secure the teachers who will be required by the date mentioned.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that the Noble Lady is introducing a Second Reading discussion. On the Third Reading, discussion is limited strictly to that which is in the Bill.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am extremely sorry if I have transgressed the Rules of Order, but I can only say that the reply which was given to me on 17th December to a question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman showed that during the
years 1923 to 1928 the increase of output of the training colleges over the year 1923, which was a basic year in which admissions were cut down for financial reasons, was only 2,600 teachers, and the large mass of teachers that have been mopped up in the last few years I believe to have been accounted for by the 5,000 odd teachers whom the local authorities dismissed from their service in those years of financial stress. Therefore, he is building on sand if he is assuming that the output will provide him with 5,000 additional teachers in the next few years, because it is clear that the large number of teachers whose services were dispensed with by the local authorities must have provided a very large part of the number absorbed into the teaching profession. Therefore, we have no guarantee whatever that the teachers who are absolutely indispensable for the working of the Bill will be there.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Noble Lady is not carrying out my Ruling.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I will pass from that point. We all want this Bill to be an educational benefit, but unless the teachers can be provided it can be of very little benefit to the children. That is one of our reasons for wishing to delay the operation of the Bill and for our opposition to its Third Reading.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: On a point of Order. You prevented the Noble Lady from bringing up the question of teachers. In the Preamble of the Bill, I find that it is a Bill which requires parents
to cause their children to receive efficient elementary instruction.
You cannot possibly have efficient instruction unless you provide the necessary teachers, the right teachers and a sufficient number of them. Therefore, I submit most respectfully, that the question of teachers is definitely included in the word "efficient."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that I cannot accept that argument. There is no Clause in the Bill which in any way deals with the provision of teachers. We are limited to what is in the Bill. The Debate on Third Reading is more restricted than the Debate on Second Reading, because it is limited to matters contained in the Bill.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: As an old teacher it seems to me that the words "efficient
elementary instruction" include the provision of the necessary teachers.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Bill is for the purpose of raising the school age and granting allowances.

Mr. KINLEY: Although the area of the Debate is naturally restricted on the Third Reading, I hope that I may take this opportunity of expressing my disappointment at the contents of the Bill now before us. I have so far not been able to find it within my power to cast one vote for this Bill, or for any part of it. I have been profoundly disappointed that a Labour Government should have introduced an educational Measure of this kind with the contents that we find therein. That the school-leaving age should be raised to 15, I most cordially agree. I would go beyond 15, because the education that can be given up to the age of 15 will in no circumstances give those who receive it an opportunity in life equal to that which is given to those who are above the ranks of the working classes. Even in spite of the additional year the boys and girls who are forced by the economic circumstances of their parents to attend elementary schools will suffer in the future, as they have done in the past, from the handicap that they will still be the possessors of an inferior education, compared with the boys and girls of other classes of the nation.
I have long held that the class that ought to be guaranteed the highest standard of education possible ought to be those who up to the present time have not been able to receive it, that is, those who are going to do the nation's work. Those who are to be the workers ought to have a much higher education than that which is represented by elementary school life from five to fifteen years. I have no objection whatever to the raising of the school age to 15, as such, but I have many and profound objections to the methods adopted by this Bill. I would suggest to the Minister and the House that this Bill in its present form, imposed upon the local authorities, is going to create throughout the country amongst local education authorities and amongst the parents of the boys and girls who will be affected by it a considerable amount of disquiet. It will arouse the most serious misgiving on the part of the local autho-
rities, and in many districts where economic conditions are not only bad but are steadily worsening it will be such an infliction upon the parents that it will cause in their minds a reaction against continued education for their children.
In common with others I have been proud on many occasions to endeavour to arouse working-class audiences in different parts of the country to a realisation of the value of education for their children and have endeavoured to secure their adhesion to a policy which would demand from this House that their children should in future have a far better educational opportunity than has been possible hitherto, and yet, to my great regret, I find it impossible to support the first Bill that is introduced by the Labour Government to give an additional year at school for boys and girls. I object profoundly to the right thing being done in the wrong way and in so wrong a way as to make progress in the future exceedingly difficult. That must inevitably result from the operation of this Measure. Those who are closely associated with the working-classes know well that in times like the present when parents are anxious that the strain upon their home circumstances shall be eased, that they take advantage of the first opportunity which comes along. In these times the only individuals who can be fairly sure of finding a ready occupation in any of our towns and cities are the boys and girls of 14 years of age who are just leaving school. There is, of course, an explanation for this.
Many industries have progressed so much in standardisation and mechanisation that boys and girls just leaving school can be trained to become efficient producers in these industries and there is therefore a temptation for employers to use them and provide them with employment up to the time of 16 when the Unemployment Insurance takes charge of them. There is a knowledge on the part of the parents that they can at least get work for two years for their boys and girls and the additional wages is an enormous inducement to keep their children away from school regardless of the educational sacrifice involved. I am aware that a large percentage of working-class parents, whose circumstances are
not good economically, do make sacrifices to keep their children at school after the age of 14 in order that their education may be improved and their prospects in life better than those of the parents themselves. But in the industrial circumstances of the present day, and the industrial outlook of the future, who is able to say, or who dares to say, that the average worker is going to be so well placed financially and industrially that he will be able, without any sacrifice, to keep his boys and girls at school up to the age of 14 and 15. There is no hon. Member who would make such a statement.
Quite apart from this and the reaction of parents against further education, which is bound to arise as a result of the operation of this Bill, there are other points to which I profoundly object. I say that the whole financial provisions of the Bill are wrong. The nation has a duty to its children. It is the duty of the nation to provide the highest standard of education it can afford, and that involves that the nation shall make itself responsible for the whole financial burden involved. Until the nation does that there can be no solution of our educational problem. It may change, it may alter in its character, but it will remain insoluble until the nation does the right and proper thing and itself bears the whole financial cost of educating its children. The evils that are tied up with any other method of financing education can be understood by those who are connected with industrial areas where industrial conditions fluctuate, and one has only to remember—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going outside the scope of the Bill. He can only discuss what is in the Bill.

Mr. KINLEY: I want to apply to this Bill—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already said that on Third Reading we can only discuss what is in the Bill. The hon. Member's remarks would be quite proper to a Second Reading Debate, but it is now out of order to discuss whether the State should bear the whole of the expenditure.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely it is in order for an hon. Member to state that because a 100 per cent. grant has not
been given in Committee stage he is going to vote against the Third Reading?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member only stated that position he would be quite in order, but he is proceeding to argue the question that the Government should pay the whole of the expenditure.

Lord E. PERCY: This is rather an important matter. It is, of course, quite true that we cannot on Third Reading discuss anything not in the Bill, but, so far as the Bill is concerned, there is nothing to prevent the Government paying any rate of grant. Surely, it is not the case that you must not mention on Third Reading a question which is left open by the Bill itself.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question of the amount of the allowance is quite in order, but to discuss whether it should be paid entirely by the State is out of order.

Lord E. PERCY: May I ask, for information, why it should be out of order? There is nothing in the Bill which prevents the payment of 100 per cent. allowances as far as I know, and surely we are allowed to discuss on Third Reading something which the Government has power to do under the Bill, although it may not be put upon them as an absolute duty?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Bill has two purposes—to extend the school age, and to provide maintenance allowances. The question as to whether maintenance allowances should be paid partly or wholly by the State does not arise. The hon. Member can object to the amount of the allowances granted.

Mr. KINLEY: I want to deal with the financial provisions of the Bill so far as they affect local rating. The maintenance allowance grant does have a direct bearing upon the expenditure of local education authorities. Every one acquainted with industrial areas where there are industrial fluctuations will know that when trade is good the local education authority is perfectly ready and willing to go forward with its statutory obligations, but under the Bill there is going to be thrown upon every local education authority an additional and obligatory financial burden, which will
have to be taken as a permanent obligation so far as its local education authority's activities are concerned. It will have to be shouldered by the local education authority whether trade is good, bad or indifferent. This is one of the things upon which it cannot, for instance, economise. Therefore, the whole possible burden in these circumstances will be thrown on the existing surpluses outside this. As we all know, at the present time the local education authorities are compelled to carry out from time to time the most rigid economy, which is utterly disastrous in educational matters. This will intensify the difficulties, and, instead of being a progressive step in education, it will actually prove in its working, if it ever comes to be an Act in working, not a step forward but a step backward.
I suggest to the Minister and to the Government that there can be no progressive steps taken in education unless the Government base their Bill not, as this is based, upon part of the financial cost being borne by the State and part by the local authority, but that every step, if it is really to be progressive, must be one in which the financial burden is shouldered by the Government themselves. On these grounds and others, having already detained the House long enough, I, for one, register my protest against what, on the face of it, may appear to be a progressive Measure, but which actually and fundamentally is one of the most retrograde Measures we have had.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley). I will not infringe upon the Ruling of the Chair in this matter, but I may be permitted to say that the hon. Member expressed the opinion of those who are representative of the local authorities. The Municipal Corporations' Association, at a meeting held to discuss this Bill, passed a Resolution asking that this additional burden should not be placed upon them. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has had any intimation of that, but I am certain his chief will have had. We have never had an answer to that request put forward by such a responsible body.
I wish to say a few words on the Third Reading of this Bill. Like the hon.
Member who last spoke, I have opposed the Bill at every stage, though perhaps not quite from the point of view he has taken up, but because I believe it to be a thoroughly bad Bill, one which is not going to accomplish anything of educational value, and one which will cause a good deal of controversy and bad blood amongst those who ought to be combining for the good of the children and their education. Is this Bill desired by the country? I say, emphatically, in my opinion it is not. I have travelled about the country a good deal since the Bill was introduced, and have taken the opportunity, both at public meetings and in private conversations, to question those who are engaged in educational work as to whether the public really desire this Measure. In every case the answer has been an emphatic "No." The position at the moment is that any local education authority can by law raise the age to 15, with power to grant exemptions in individual cases. That is a sensible and elastic scheme, very different from the compulsory scheme in this Bill.
Look at the response there has been to that power given by a former Act of Parliament. My information is that this power of exemption has been used extensively in the districts where that particular matter had been in operation. Certainly in the district of Carnarvon, which is the only district where it has been strictly enforced, there are no figures of exemptions granted, but in East Suffolk out of 1,839 children due to remain at school until 15, unless their parents went to the trouble of asking for exemption—it was not a case of the children being merely taken away from school, and the authorities having to bring them back again, but of the parents having to make a written application—we only had 339 remaining in school until 15, proving that large numbers of parents, about 1,500, did not desire their children to remain, and went to the trouble, which we all know working class people hate, namely, of filling in forms, making special applications and taking all the trouble in order to withdraw their children.
In Plymouth, the figures show that out of 1,459 children, only 306 remained at school. In the county of Cornwall, out
of 3,228 children, 250 remained and the parents of the rest claimed exemption. If ever you had a clear proof that it was not popular with the parents, you have got it in these figures. I submit then, that at the present moment there are ample opportunities for children to continue education if their parents so desire. You get a difference in children. For instance, you get it even among members of the same family. Some boys and girls benefit considerably by remaining at school, I freely admit. The policy I have always pursued, as a member of an education committee for many years, has been to encourage that type of boy or girl to remain, and go on to pass through secondary schools, and then on to universities if they have the brains to carry them along. I remember very well in my days at school—I attended an elementary school—a boy we had there never got beyond Standard III.
In those days, if you could pass a certain fairly stiff examination you could be granted exemption from attending schools from 12 years of age as long as you did not go to work in a factory. I left school at 12, after passing an examination of the sort I have described. This boy was older than I was, but he never passed the third standard. People asked what was to become of him, for he could not claim to be allowed to leave until he reached the age of 13. What happened to him? He went into business as an apprentice at a plumber's. To-day be is a very successful business man, and when the question is put to him, "What would have happened to you if you had done better at school," he says, "I can get a clerk at 30s. a week to do all that. I am busy getting orders and seeing they are executed." You cannot class everybody alike.
I well remember a man who applied for a situation as a school caretaker at about 30s. a week. One of the tests was that he had to be able to read and write fairly well. He could not do either, and he did not get the job. That man started hawking coal, and got quite a good business as a coal dealer. He was able to save a little money and lived comfortably off. It was once said to him, "How successful you have been, but what would you have been like if you had had a superior education?" He replied, "I should have been a school caretaker at
30s. a week." There is no doubt about it, you cannot class all children or adults alike, for they are different. There are opportunities to-day, nobody denies, for boys and girls who have mental capacities to go forward with education. In my own town there is a working man of whom I am very proud, because he has had three sons who have graduated from a Catholic school to a secondary school, and again to the universities, and are holding very good appointments to-day. They are a credit to their parents, to the town and to the education authorities who encouraged them.
With these examples before us, why do we want this compulsory Measure? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but surely their own practical experience has taught them that one more year at school for a certain type of child is of no value whatever. It would have been no value to the boy of whom I have spoken. There must be more than one year if it is to be of any real use. I remember a boy coming to me to ask me whether I could find him a situation. I suppose that hon. Members opposite often get such applications. I have a great admiration for the boy's father. He is a dockside labourer, a transport worker. He sent his boy to a secondary school because he wanted the boy to have a better chance than himself. The boy could not pass the examination to go forward for a free scholarship. It was not a very difficult examination; they have had to lower the standard time after time because they did not get sufficient entries. So this man, the casual worker, out of the little money that he had gave the boy a secondary education. He sacrificed a good deal, something more than a man ought to sacrifice. The boy completed his course at the secondary school and asked me to find him a situation. When I put him through a very simple test, I was very disappointed, because with his accomplishments, with all these years wasted upon him, he was not in a position to take a position even as a junior clerk in an office. That boy was eminently suitable for a certain type of work for which his education did not fit him. It is no use burking the question. You cannot make everyone into a bank clerk or a teacher; some of us must do other work. Unless you adopt a system of
vocational training, you will not do any good by keeping children at school beyond the present period.
We were told that this Bill was necessary because of the effect it would have on the unemployment problem. We have heard less and less about that as the Bill has gone through its various stages. The Secretary of State for the Dominions rather put a damper on the suggestion in the early days when, as Lord Privy Seal, he was dealing with unemployment. In a speech at the Labour party Conference at Brighton, as far back as October, 1929, he emphatically warned the conference not to assume that the raising of the school age would mean more employment, because it did not follow that a man would be employed to do the work of a boy. I know that that statement has been quoted many times, but as it came from such a source I regard it as something of which we ought to take note. I suggest that other Members of the Labour party in their speeches have declared that the Bill was not going to be of much use in mitigating the unemployment problem. The Minister of Education has given us various estimates on the point. Those estimates have dwindled from time to time. Then in the newspaper which is said to represent the official opinion of the Government an entirely different figure, a little smaller still, is given.
The real answer to the question whether the Bill is going to do anything to relieve unemployment, was given by the Minister of Education when he agreed to postpone the operation of the Bill until September, 1932, for if the Bill is going to do anything to relieve the unemployment problem, it must be put into operation now. I am satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman himself realised that all the estimates he has made, the big ones and the small ones, were nonsensical. I notice that an hon. Member opposite, the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), when speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, was emphatic in his opinion. He was speaking about the maintenance grants, and he said:
Those who are on the right side of the line are to get the maintenance allowance and will be the new aristocracy and the people to be envied.
I agree with him as to that.
Wherever there is a mother who is not getting it, and living in the midst of those who are, you can imagine what a source of anger, discontent and irritation that will be for every one of the 52 weeks of the year. When the mother knows it, the children will know it and it will be carried to the schools."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1930; col. 1609, Vol. 239.]
I know that the hon. Member has had a considerable experience as an educationist. He has had to control a school. My recollection goes back to the time when we had to pay school money, and when the parents of children who could not afford to pay the money had to apply for exemption. I know, when those children came along with their exemption papers, what the other children had to say to them, and that they did not have a very comfortable time. I agree that it was not very wise of the children, but that happened. It is evident that the hon. Member for Walsall realises what will happen in this case. When we consider the many difficulties that the Government have come up against in dealing with this matter, and that those difficulties have been emphasised in a very remarkable way to-day, I think they would have been much wiser not to have proceeded with the Third Reading, but to have withdrawn the Bill until such time as the matter can be properly thrashed out between the contending parties.
I have listened to speech after speech by the Minister, and I have read his speeches as reported in the public Press. I submit that the arguments he has put forward have been weak. He has not been able to prove his case regarding the relief of unemployment. He has not been able to face up to the question whether the parents desire the Bill or not; and on the question of cost to the local authorities he is going to leave the local authorities to find things out for themselves as best they can. To my mind the Bill is a thoroughly bad Bill. I sum up my criticism of it by saying that it will be of no value educationally. It has not been proved in any of our Debates that the Bill will assist from an educational point of view. Lastly, I say that at this moment neither the nation nor the local authorities can afford the vast amount of money that will have to be found if the Bill gets to the Statute Book.
The question of expenditure is very serious. We have had various estimates
given to us from time to time, but in my opinion we have never had stated to us the real facts. Taking into consideration the reconditioning of schools, the building of new schools to carry the scholars who will be there when the Bill operates, I say that the amount that we have been given as an estimate of the cost, has been grossly understated. I claim that my district has been very progressive in its education policy. It happens to be one of the districts where there has been an increase of population in the last 20 years. During the War we had to stop our school building. Immediately the War was over we tried to make up leeway. We have not caught up to our ordinary requirements yet. I was speaking to the chairman of the education committee on this subject a few weeks ago. I asked him the plain question, "If this Bill becomes law, will you be able to have the accommodation ready for the children by the time the Bill comes into operation?" He replied that with the best will in the world and with a council prepared to vote any sum of money towards this object, it would not be possible to provide the accommodation in the time.
Ask any practical man if it is possible to have the supply of teachers ready, even by September, 1932. I am satisfied from what I have heard from members of the teaching profession, that it is not possible, unless you bring back some who have been superannuated or some married women who have left the profession. You have no right to ask parents to leave their children in a school which is not suitable far them, which is bound to be overcrowded and with a short staff of teachers. My authority has aimed at reducing the size of classes. It has worked as hard as any authority could to get the necessary accommodation and the necessary supply of efficient teachers, so that it could reduce the classes to what it regarded as the right and proper size. This Bill is going to throw all that work into the melting pot. We shall have to carry on with the larger classes, and the hon. Member for Walsall will, I am sure, agree, that to do so will be bad for the teachers and bad for the children and not good in any sense as far as educational value is concerned. I submit, that the House ought to reject this Bill. It is a thoroughly bad Bill, it is an unpopular Bill in the country, and it will be of no value as a means of improving education.

Mr. MORRIS: I supported this Bill on its Second Reading and at various subsequent stages, but it comes before the House on this occasion for its Third Reading as a very different Bill from that which I supported. The Roman Catholics of this country to-day, as a result of the Amendment carried earlier, have been able to bring about a position with regard to this Bill which was totally unforeseen. The educational reform foreshadowed in the Bill, in the form in which it was introduced, can no longer be made operative until moneys have been set aside for the non-provided schools. Speaking for myself, and for myself alone, I am an unrepentant secularist in education. For my own part, I confess I do not understand what the term "religious instruction" means. If religious instruction means anything, apart from dogmatism, I confess I do not understand what it is. If, by religious instruction, it is intended to convey, as apparently it is, that you should teach Biblical history and the history of the Kings of the Old Testament or New Testament history, than I fail to understand the distinction between the history of the Kings of the Old Testament and the history of the Kings of England or any other country. There is no distinction at all. To my mind that is not religious instruction. Religious instruction ought to be confined to the churches and the home. Let the churches carry out their own work. This Bill cannot now be put into operation until provision is made for religious instruction in these schools. I do not care whether you teach the Cambridge syllabus, or the dogmatic teaching of one church or another, or what is called undenominational teaching. To my mind that is a gross misnomer and undenominational teaching is merely the creation of an additional form of denominational teaching. A Bill which makes provision of this sort, and this Bill must now make such provision, is one to which, I hope, this House of Commons will not give any sanction at all.
I regret to have to come to this conclusion. I should like to see this educational reform carried. I should like to see the educational reform of raising the school age and advancing the educational facilities of the children of this country, if it had been made possible to do so, but it is no longer possible for the
Government, under this Bill, to make that attempt. It is not the Government's fault, I agree. It is not the fault of the Minister. I have had other quarrels with him at various stages of the proceedings on this Bill. For instance, I regret that he did not make proper provision for rural education, but, quite apart from that, the present position of the Bill is such and the position achieved by the Roman Catholic church in this country to-day is such, that, in my view, the Bill ought not now to receive a Third Reading from this House but ought to be thrown out.

Mr. McSHANE: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) should take such a gloomy view of the situation because of the Amendment that has been carried to-day, and I notice, with some slight amusement, that the hon. Member in condemning the dogmatists is so much more dogmatic than the domgatists themselves. If he had his way, I have no doubt that those learned gentlemen who are giving their views in the Sunday "Observer" every week—their educational views on the universe in general—

Mr. MORRIS: Would the hon. Member allow me to interrupt him for a moment? I said that what any church teaches is dogmatism and what I object to is that they teach it under the guise of not being dogmatic. I think religious teaching must, of necessity, be dogmatic.

Mr. McSHANE: I am prepared to accept that statement of the hon. Member's views with this understanding—that as the charge usually made is that they are dogmatic, the charge of the hon. Member is that they are not dogmatic, and as the two arguments cancel each other out I am not particularly mindful of them. I am more concerned with the criticism of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) who quoted me. When the hon. Member pleads for vocational training to-day, as distinguished from what I hope will be a cultural education for the boys and girls who will be kept at school for another year, he shows that he knows little or nothing of the extraordinary changes which have taken place, in industry. It will probably surprise him to know that the machines in the factories have, to all intents and purposes, settled that question of vocational training. I can give my experience of a
Poor-law school, of the committee of which I was chairman for many years. Boys and girls up to 14 years there were put to such occupations as learning to make suits of clothes, learning dressmaking, woodwork and even bootmaking.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would not be in order on the Third Reading in giving us details as to what is vocational training.

Mr. McSHANE: With great respect, Sir, I was only replying—on the question as to whether it was possible or not—to the point raised by the hon. Member for Grimsby. But I finish with that by saying that there is very little hope of vocational training to-day. I admired the confidence, shall I call it, of the hon. Member who on the one hand blames the Government for not making use of this Bill to alleviate unemployment, and, on the other hand, during the last two or three months has been attacking the Government because it was attempting to pass this Bill at all. That brings me to another of his criticisms. He quoted me as saying that there were some children who were going to be left out in connection with this question of maintenance allowances, although they might have the same right as others. The hon. Member, however, cannot have it both ways. Either he is in favour of maintenance allowances for these children, or he is not. I have not yet heard him, or any member of his party, support the proposal that the children who are to be kept at school for another year should have maintenance allowances. Indeed, in the speech which he has just delivered, he said in effect that we have not the money for these educational reforms, and presumably that we have not the money either for maintenance allowances. I ask him to settle which horse he is going to ride, either the economy horse, so-called, or the horse that is going to give the maintenance allowance to the children.
I regret that the Minister was compelled to accept the Amendment of the Liberal party which gives power, it may be, to some of the rural education authorities to de-scale the maintenance allowances. I wish the Minister had retained the original part of the Bill which made it uniform all over the land, for if a child at 14 years of age is to be kept at
school in any part of the country at all, I submit that he or she is entitled to at least a flat rate of 5s. I remember that one of the hon. Members from the Liberal benches, in speaking of this question, said there were some children who did not need as much as others. I take the view that wherever there is a child that does not need as much as another on the ground that it cannot eat as much as another, that child really needs much more, because it needs a doctor. The healthy child can eat well, and where a child cannot eat well, one may be pretty certain that medical attendance will more than make up for the 5s.
There is one other point of criticism that I have to make. I have made it already on the Second Reading, and I had hoped that there might be some change after that, but I regret that the whole burden of the maintenance allowances should not have been made a national charge, as many of us expected that it would be. There are many necessitous areas in the country which can scarcely stand the increased burden of these allowances, and I could have wished from the bottom of my heart that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education had been able to make these allowances a national charge.
I will finish, I hope, in perhaps a less critical tone. I want to congratulate the Government on having introduced this Bill. I myself, who had not the opportunities that perhaps many hon. Members opposite had, know what it is to be desirous, when very young, of being educated and of not having the opportunity, and there were hundreds of boys of my own age who would have been only too happy and delighted to get the opportunity of further education, but who were sent from their homes, because of the needs of the family, into factory life when many of them were as fitted for advanced education as those who actually went forward to it. This Bill will give an opportunity to many boys and girls whom I have seen leaving school year after year as fit as any man or woman in this House to receive further education. It will in that sense be a great step forward in the educational movement of this country, and I am certain that the fruits of it will be seen many years after this,
when we ourselves have perhaps been gathered to our fathers. I am glad to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Bill, which is now in its final stage, was greatly improved in its passage through Committee. I need hardly say that those who look on it as a purely educational Measure are very well satisfied with the work which has been done by the Committee here and by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. My right hon. Friend has certainly shown an enthusiasm for this Bill which does him great credit and will, I have no doubt, be of permanent benefit to the educational system of this country. But, like other Ministers of Education, he has found that whenever he attempts educational reform, he brings himself into conflict with the religious feelings of one or other section of the country. It has been one of the misfortunes which has dogged our educational reforms from the earliest years, and it is not less strong now than it was in 1902. It is well known that my right hon. Friend has been making attempts to reach something like agreement between the Churches. It does him great credit, and I should like to say publicly that those of us who have been guarding, as we think we ought to guard, the religious freedom of the children of the people of our Churches have reason to be grateful to him for the patience that he has shown in dealing with a very intractable problem.
10.0 p.m.
In my own view—and I can only express my own view on this subject—it appeared to me that we were approaching some sort of agreement within our educational system, relief from some of those jealousies and antipathies, and certainly up till this afternoon there was every prospect of the Free Churches and the representatives of the Established Church at least coming to an understanding—a compromise, if you like to call it a compromise, but at all events an understanding—whereby there would have been more simple working and more general adaptation of our system to the requirements of the times.
The passage of the Amendment this afternoon on the Report stage has entirely altered the situation. I would myself have done on the Third Reading what I have done throughout this Bill, and that is supported it as I did when-
ever I was present in the House. But I cannot support a Bill with a principle so pernicious as is incorporated in this Amendment. What one thinks individually is not of great moment, but I deeply regret that there should have been inserted into the Bill an Amendment so disliked by the Free Churches, raising principles of such great importance and, as we think, of such a retrograde character that it would be impossible on this basis to build anything in the nature of a compromise. This will place my right hon. Friend and, I think, all the educationists in this country at a great disadvantage. I therefore deplore, on educational grounds, the passage of this Amendment.
It is one of the tragedies of nearly every Education Minister that he finds the best of his schemes destroyed by feuds between the Christian Churches. The Churches themselves are perfectly sincere. They believe in their own views as being vital, not only to their well-being, but to the cause of religion itself, and we cannot blame them for the attitude which they have taken up. There did at one time seem to be some prospect of their attitudes being harmonized, but I fear now that this Amendment has made that impossible. I say so with the very deepest regret. I can only hope that some arrangement can be made that will prevent this principle ever being put into practice, even if it means a delay in the working of this Bill, I can only say that it places the people of this country under not only a religious but an educational disability.
In these circumstances, it is difficult to know what should be one's course. I know that outside there will be very large numbers of Free Churchmen, who are associated with some of the causes to which I am attached myself, who will hold exactly the views that I am expressing now, that this, as a new basis for compromise, is quite out of the question and that negotiations will be doubly difficult now that this Amendment has been passed. The Bill is not through Parliament yet, and it may be that at other stages we shall be able to deal with it, but as it stands at the present time, in this shape, I regret to say that even people like myself, who have devoted a great many years to educational work in and outside this House, will find it impossible to vote for it.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I do not suppose that I have ever followed a Bill more closely than this one. For practically every moment that the Bill has been before the House I have been present in my place and have listened to all the arguments for and against it. It is probably one of the worst Bills that has ever been presented to the House, and I do not believe that, notwithstanding the fact that it has been postponed to 1932, it will be practicable when 1932 comes. We are not against the raising of the school age, but we believe that at the right time it will be very beneficial. We are also, contrary to what the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) said, not averse to maintenance allowances, because we have for long approved of scholarships to selected children, which take them in many cases as far as the University. We do not believe, however, in bringing in a Bill which is not going to be workable at a time like this, when every penny of the country's money should be put out to the best advantage.
Our disapproval is based on the question of accommodation among other questions. Owing to the bulge, even if the accommodation is so hastened forward that it is ready in 1932, there will, when the birth-rate becomes normal again, be too much accommodation. The same argument applies with regard to the teachers. It has never been denied by the President of the Board of Education or the Parliamentary Secretary that there are insufficient teachers, and yet in the first words of the Bill it is stated that it is required in order to give the children efficient elementary instruction. As has been rightly asked by a colleague on these benches who was a schoolmaster, how can you get efficient teaching unless you have sufficient teachers to give it? Those of us who have been interested in education as members of local authorities for many years have been endeavouring to decrease the number of children in the classes, because with so many children in a class it is impossible to give adequate education. Until there are sufficient teachers and sufficient accommodation, the Bill is bound so to fill the schools and the classes that the children will not receive adequate education.
Still more important is the question of the curriculum. I do not believe that
any educationist has had the opportunity, as yet, to consider the curriculum which must be arranged if the children are to get the benefit of the extra year's attendance at school. When bringing forward the Bill, the President seemed to think that that was quite a secondary matter. I have heard many parents complain that under present conditions their children are often kept at school, after they are 13, plus when they have reached the highest class; and they are kept there more or less marking time. The extra year should be used to the best advantage in order to make the child better fitted for the work it will have to follow when it leaves school. It is absurd that children should remain in school and carry on with the work which they have already done. In boys clubs in which I am interested, we give the boys an extra year of training in something that will make them efficient and in some degree above other children.
We consider that this is a bad Bill, because we shall not get value for the money which will be expended. We all know, and even the Socialist party know, although they do not show it in practice, that the country cannot afford to pay for extravagant Measures. If this Bill were really going to accomplish the purposes for which it has been brought forward, we should have nothing to say on that score, but we say—and it has never been contradicted either by the President or the Parliamentary Secretary—that this Bill cannot possibly work as it is meant to work even in 1932. Even after one or two years longer it would not be really effective. We put down an Amendment to postpone its operation until 1936, for by that time the circumstances would be such that the real benefit of the Bill, which is the education of the children—which we want, and which the Socialist party say they want—could be obtained. I hope that the Bill will be defeated in the Division, because I am sure that the country as a whole will be grateful if it is not passed into law.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Education seems to be a very unfortunate subject in this House. We have opposed to it not only the politicians, but unfortunately the sectarians. We try to meet the religionists, as they have been met by the President of the Board of Education; they
get very nearly to a point of agreement, and then suddenly the hand is thrown in, and they discover once again that it is impossible to vote for this Bill. So with the politicians; they all give lip-service to the object of higher education, but, when it comes to the point of implementing their ideals by their votes, we find in nearly every case that they discover some reason not connected with the object of the Bill for voting against it. One of the most deplorable instances of this is that which we have had from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman). I thought that at least he was a friend of education who could make his love for education overcome either his political prejudices or his religious difficulties. His reasons are extraordinary. He is going to vote against theGovernment—[HON.MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, he is not going to support the Government. The Government have had forced upon them an Amendment which, if the right hon. Gentleman will read it, need not in any way cause him to take any action in opposition to the Government, or to refrain from supporting the Government. The Amendment simply says that this Bill shall
not come into operation until an Act has been passed authorising expenditure out of public funds upon such conditions as are necessary to meet the cost to be incurred by the managers of non-provided schools.
That is nothing new. That negotiations were going on on that very point was perfectly well known to the right hon. Gentleman, and he raised no note of opposition in this House. They went on. but because negotiations have not ended in the complete result that he wanted, he now says that he objects in principle to public funds going to the assistance of non-provided schools. All the way through the greater part of the cost of education in non-provided schools is provided from the public purse. I do not suppose the capital charges for the buildings and their cost of upkeep come to anything like 5 per cent. of the cost of running education. He has no objection to the 95 per cent. being spent upon education, but his conscience is touched by the 5 per cent. for the cost of the building.
The compromise which he and his friends have supported for so many years is not infringed in the least by the
Amendment which has been carried. In 1902 we had the religionists "burying the hatchet" and agreeing that if they were left in possession of their buildings the secular education provided by the State would be carried on in them, they for their part finding the small amount necessary to maintain the buildings. That compromise remains, and it is as binding upon us to-day as it was in 1902, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and those who support him, that what is wanted now from the owners of non-provided schools is something that was not contemplated when that compromise was arrived at. Because the whole of our school system is, very rightly, being reeonstructed, they are now asked to find more money to build new schools where necessary or to reconstruct the existing ones. May I suggest that that is something which was not envisaged when the original compromise was made? My right hon. Friend, in his meeting with the owners of non-provided schools, has not ploughed up that compromise, but has endeavoured to meet the situation on the basis of it and deal fairly with those who were the original parties to it.
I suggest to Liberal Members that it would be deplorable if they made use of an arrangement of that kind as an excuse for not voting for the cause of education as it is presented by this Bill. This is a long overdue Measure, overdue even from the point of view of the pledges and promises of the party opposite, who have on this occasion caused the greatest amount of delay to the passing of the Measure. The hon. Member who preceded me has referred to the heavy cost which it imposes and the difficulty of bearing that burden. In 1917 and 1918, when we were legislating to provide higher education for children over 14 years of age, we were spending £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 a day in prosecuting the War. In spite of that expenditure this House, led by some hon. Members who have opposed this Bill to-night, faced up to the enormous expenditure involved by the Act of 1918. I have turned up the Debates upon that Measure, and I find that the general tone of them was that men of all ranks of society, particularly those of the working classes, who had acquitted themselves across the water in such a way that their children were entitled to the best education that we could
give them. Over and over again that statement was made at that particular time, and it was used as a reason for supporting so much additional expenditure at a time when we were involved in the heavy daily expenditure of the War. In introducing that Measure, Mr. Herbert Fisher prefaced his remarks by saying:
It is prompted by deficiencies which have been revealed by toe war; it is framed to repair the intellectual wastage which has been caused by the war; and should it pass into law before peace is struck it will put a prompt end to an evil which has grown to alarming proportions during the past three years—I allude to the industrial pressure—it will greatly facilitate the solution of many problems of juvenile employment, which will certainly be affected by the transition of the country from a basis of war to a basis of peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1917, cols. 795–6, Vol. 97.]
That Bill, which was passed with those objects, has never been implemented. One of the chief proposals of the Bill was that there should be education for children beyond the elementary stage, but that has never been carried out. The promises that were made, and the reward that was offered, have never been carried into effect, and the party opposite are guilty of having made a definite promise to the workers of this country and their children which they have failed from time to time since to carry into effect. What they did was to put into that Bill, with all its promises, a Clause that it should come into operation on the provided day. Over and over again local authorities have sought to have that provided day actually provided, and the successive occupants of the office of President of the Board of Education have continued to say that the time is not opportune. It is 13 years since that Act was discussed in this House and now, when we seek to carry out to some extent the promises and enactments of the Act of 1918 to bring about the provided day every reason for delay is given by the party opposite. It seems to me to be unnecessary, in the light of those facts, to state that when they envisaged those changes and improvements in the education of the children of this country we were much deeper involved in financial difficulties. They made those promises then, and now they make use of financial difficulties still further to postpone this Bill. May I quote what one speaker in that Debate said, and to me it seems to be what many
other speakers said, bearing on the reasons for the Bill, and I think is of a most eloquent and pathetic character. Mr. King, quoting from a "Times" article, headed "A National College of All Souls," says that
The true memorial to our dead heroes could be best attained by establishing the education of the future young men of this country upon a permanent and better basis.
That tribute to our men during that period has never been carried into effect. It is a promise which has not been fulfilled, and to-day, 13 years after the Act was passed, the party opposite is still trying to avoid the necessity of meeting it.
I also want particularly to refer to a remark that was made by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). The hon. Member is very amusing, because he takes this House into his confidence. He tells the House very interesting little tit-bits of autobiography, and he also informs us in a tone of profound conviction what some unknown person in the fish trade on one occasion told him, while he adorns his speeches with the most convincing metaphors and the strongest confirmations from quite unknown quarters. In this particular matter, he showed, unfortunately for him, an entire ignorance of or failure to grasp the real significance of this Bill. He summed it up by saying that it was a Bill to give to the children of this country an extra year's school life.
If that is all that it is going to do, I agree with the hon. Member that it is not worth making a great deal of fuss about, but, were he a student of the history of the educational thought and advance that has led up to this Bill, he would be aware that the smallest significance to be found in any part of the Bill lies in the extra year which is to be given to the children under the influence of their teachers. The truth is that that extra year is wanted for quite other purposes than merely adding another 12 months to the child's period at school. Had the hon. Member studied it, he would know that behind this Measure is a whole reorganisation of the school life of the child.
When, in the course of his account of those interesting little details which he gives us of the rather lesser events of his remarkable life, the hon. Member tells
us about what children fresh from school at the age of 13 or 14 are able to do, and how poor he finds their education to have been, I, personally, sympathise with him, and feel that to a large extent he has justified the feeling that the teaching has been very incomplete. It is because of that fact that this extra year has been given. People have discovered for themselves that there is no particular biological or educational significance about the year 14. Everyone seems to think it a sort of divine decree that a child should leave school at 14, but there really is no reason in the child's intellectual growth or physical development why 14 should have been fixed upon. It is simply an arbitrary figure which has been gradually based upon successive increases in the child's life at school.
Certain discoveries, however, based upon the history of the child's development, have disclosed one or two facts as to very significant dates in his progress. For instance, the change at about the age of eight from the infant school to the junior school is quite well understood, and, while he is in the junior school, which we now know as the elementary school, the normal child does acquire what may be called the tools of education. He learns to cipher, to write and to read, but these things are only the tools of education. These things, when they are taught in a school attended by children of the well-to-do classes, are called preparatory work. Most of the work that is done in our elementary schools is described as preparatory work in a school to which the child of rich parents is sent. Why is it not called preparatory? Why is it called elementary, and not preparatory, for the children of the working class? The working class parent might ask, "Preparatory for what?" But that is really all that it is, and the average normal child attains all that there is of preparatory work to be attained by him at the age of about 11. That year is now definitely fixed as the year when he completes the acquirement of these necessary tools of education.
After that, another discovery has been made, that you can have a post-primary course but that, whether that course is an academic one or a physical one, whether it is based upon practical work or upon a desire to acquire commercial
knowledge, or in whatever direction it is to go, the discovery has been made that it must be a four years' course to be a good course. It is no good making it a three years' course. That is inadequate, but let him have a four years' post-primary course and he can get the full benefit for every month that he spends in that senior school. It is for those reasons that the age has been raised, in order, to sum it up in one sentence, that children of all classes may have a four years' course, an organised, suitable course, after they pass from the primary school before they are able to go to work. That is the reason, and the four years' course is far more important than the extra year. I have gone into that matter because to look upon the Bill in the way in which it has been looked upon—I do not want to be impolite, but it has been purposely disparaged by saying it is only an additional year to the child's life—is to miss entirely the significance of the work that has been done. For that reason, I hope the Liberal party, surely of all parties the one which in its history is pledged to these educational advantages which are so necessary to our young population, will be in favour of it, and I make the appeal very strongly that they should see their way to support the Bill.

Lord E. PERCY: The speech with which we have just been favoured is a very good example of the kind of instruction on educational matters which presumably the constituencies are getting at present. The hon. Member appeared to believe that the Education Act of 1918 provided for the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 as from an appointed day, that the local education authorities have been continually pressing for such an appointed day and that no such appointed day has ever been fixed.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Will the Noble Lord allow me to correct him? I did not imply that. I said it was a higher post-primary or post-elementary course that was given to these children. I perfectly understood that it was not continuous education.

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member meant that the Coalition, including members of his own party, in 1918 provided for two years continuation education from 14 to 16 as from an appointed
day and, therefore, that it was high time that the school-leaving age was now raised to 15, he was guilty of the most extraordinary non sequitur and, considering that he had the effrontery to base upon that argument a charge of dishonesty and breach of pledges against Members on this side of the House, I would suggest to him that the next time he goes to his constituents he should take a little more care not to break the Ninth Commandment.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: May I ask whether the Noble Lord is accusing me of deliberately lying to my constituents? I should like to hear.

Lord E. PERCY: I assure the hon. Member that I am not accusing him of deliberately doing anything.

Mr. BARR: Is it not the Eighth Commandment which speaks about stealing?

Lord E. PERCY: I was talking about bearing false witness against your neighbour.

Mr. BARR: The Ninth Commandment, to which the Noble Lord referred, is
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house.

HON. MEMBERS: That is the Tenth.

Mr. BARR: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his servant, nor his maid.

Lord E. PERCY: I will commit myself to the judgment of the House and to those who have received their religious education in provided council schools in this country and not in Scotland. To come to more serious matters, we are now parting with this Bill, upon which we have spent a good deal of Parliamentary time. We are parting with it in rather curious circumstances. We have made many criticisms of it. Perhaps we have rather repeated ourselves in our criticism, but if we have done so, it has been partly because our criticisms have met with extraordinarily little reply. Our main criticism against this Bill from the beginning has been that it has been a piecemeal Measure, and that it has not faced any of the problems which we require to be solved before, quite apart from the question of compulsion, the raising of the school-leaving age could
be made an effective educational measure. It has not faced the problems of reorganisation as far as provided schools are concerned, and still less has it faced the problems of reorganisation as far as the non-provided schools are concerned.
I should like to refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), which, I think, illustrates very well the extraordinary confusion in which this House has been left by the Government during the last 18 months. From the beginning, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education confessed that it was essential to any raising of the school-leaving age that certain measures should be taken to deal with the reorganisation of non-provided schools, and at least for the last year we have been given to understand that the measures which he proposed and which were under negotiation with various sections outside this House, were based upon the principle of giving certain temporary financial assistance to existing voluntary schools in return for certain conditions. The right hon. Member for St. Ives was not here when the point was raised, but if he had been here he would have heard me go out of my way to suggest in public, what I had previously suggested in private, a concession as to those conditions, which I should be prepared to support. He now comes down and says that because we have put into print in this Bill the basis of negotiations which we have been given to understand was the basis on which those negotiations have been proceeding, it will be impossible, as I understood him to say, to continue those negotiations in the future. If that be the fact, it illustrates the extraordinary confusion into which this House has been led by the tabling of a Bill which proposed to put additional compulsion upon the children and parents and which left entirely vague the consequential measures which were necessary in order to justify that compulsion even in the opinion of the authors of the Bill.
From month to month and year to year we have been put off with statements that things were going well, that there was great hopes of a settlement, and now we are told, when it has actually come to the crucial point of carrying this Bill into law, that the mere statement
in cold print of the acknowledged basis of those negotiations is sufficient to destroy the negotiations. There could not be a better illustration of the fundamental evil of trying to do Government business this way. The right hon. Gentleman thought it essential 18 months ago, to the credit of the Government, to make a declaration that the Government were going to raise the school-leaving age. He did it before consulting the local authorities and before consulting anybody.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It has been our policy for years.

Lord E. PERCY: Ever since that time every proposal that he has made on this subject, and every Bill that he has brought forward has fallen of its own weight, We, the Opposition, were not enabled to make any change in the Government's proposals. They had an effective majority all the time. We really have been sitting watching the proposals of the Government falling and breaking by their own weight, simply because not one single one of them had been thought out in advance. And this is the last and final instance of it, when the whole of the structure of negotiations seems to disappear like a dream in the night the moment the finger of reality touches it. Of course, we understand that the Government will try to make the Opposition bear the odium of having broken down promising negotiations. I will leave that subject; I do not want to go further into past history.
If the House will allow me, I should like to say this personal word. I do not believe for a moment that the great and growing fund of goodwill on the subject of religious education has been exhausted or seriously diminished by anything that has happened in the last 18 months, although it has been somewhat diminished by unwise handling. This fund of goodwill can be made the most powerful agent of educational progress if it is rightly handled, and I hope that no party in this country and no representative of any section of opinion in this House will take an action at this moment such as is represented by the right hon. Member for St. Ives. This Bill suffers from one great defect, and that is that it is fundamentally a deception on the people of this country. The
only support behind the Measure is the belief of the people that you are opening a new high road of education for the children of the workers. By this extra year of education and by all their post primary education the Government are not leading the children of the workers along any high road except the high road at present open to them—namely, the high road through the technical college. The Government are not in any way facilitating by this Bill any child of any working man getting into a secondary school and from the secondary school into the university. This is entirely a remodelling of one year of the road through the technical college, and, whether it may or may not be valuable, it is being done at a cost, with doles and maintenance allowances, which is going to set back the real remodelling of the reform of the high road of technical education for at least 20 years.
The Government are saying to the people of this country that they are giving to them something more or less like what the rich man and the aristocrat has. What they are really giving them is a pale imitation for one or two years of the lower forms of the public schools, and to leave them with precisely the same prospect that they have at the moment—the prospect of advance through the technical college. This is the final evidence of an extraordinary lack of originality on the part of the Labour party. One would have thought that a proletarian party, rising in opposition to the old parties of the State, would have had an idea of working class education, would have started some new system of working class education, and would have thrown on one side as discredited and useless all this aristocratic, bookish, academic education of the public schools. They might have learned at least a little from those whom they look upon as their great friends, the Soviets of Russia. If they would only look at the Soviet programme of education they would find much that is horrible, in my opinion, but they would also see a conception of the real educational meaning of manual labour and mechanical work, and a whole new philosophy of education.
There is nothing of that, however, from the Labour party, no self-confidence, as representing the great proletarian revolution, only a little imitation of the
aristocratic traditions of the eighteenth century. That is as much as we get under the guise of educational reform. That is the real character of this Bill, and, for the sake of that, this Bill has disorganised the work of every local authority in the country, and seriously prejudiced the whole prospect of religious educational peace in this country. That is the price that the Government have paid for a futile piece of imitative mimicry of aristocratic education. One thing is quite clear. If this country is to have real educational reform or real economy, it will have to wait until it can have a measure of that kind introduced by the Conservative party.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): We have come now to the last stage of the progress of this Bill through the House of Commons, and, as is quite appropriate, we have heard from the Noble Lord some animadversions upon the merits of this Bill. I hasten to assure the Noble Lord that at all times I like the speech he makes. It is so full of assurance and self-confidence, and abundant faith that all progress, all originality and all intelligent administration left the Board of Education when he departed from it in 1929. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]. There is nothing like being encouraged in one's illusions! When this Bill was introduced in the House of Commons some months ago, it contained two general proposals, and I think the House will not disagree with me when I say that the Bill, in the main, as it confronts us to-night is substantially the same as the Bill which was introduced some months ago. There have been certain alterations it is true, but, in the main, the general principles are unchallenged. First of all, there is the proposal for raising the school age from 14 to 15, and, secondly, the proposal for providing maintenance allowances. I think I am right in saying that, except for certain detailed alterations, those two general propositions have remained unchallenged up to this very moment.
Moreover, it is fair to point out that the Government's proposals have been carried with, on the whole, heavy majorities, save in the case of the incident tonight. Our proposals were advanced
originally on two grounds.[Interruption]. First there were the economic grounds that the raising—[Interruption]. May I be allowed to make my speech? I have sat here for hours without saying a word in interruption of others, but I cannot now utter a single sentence without interruptions from hon. Members opposite. I want to argue fairly. First of all we advanced the claim that the Bill as originally proposed would have an economic effect on the condition of our people, and we were hoping that if our original proposals were accepted we would have been able to leave an abiding impression upon the condition of our unemployed. Now we all know that in that respect the conditions which will prevail when the Bill becomes operative have been substantially changed. Because of the postponement of the operation of the Bill until September, 1932, there will not be an immediate effect on economic conditions. But in spite of that I submit that the educational argument in favour of the Bill remains unchallenged to this hour.
On the morrow of the Second Reading Debate there was an article in a newspaper which generally supports the Opposition politically, in which the injunction was given to strengthen the opposition to the Bill on the educational side. I confidently ask the House to apply themselves to that proposition and to examine whether, in point of fact, the educational argument against the Bill has been a substantial one. I submit that it has not. There has been an argument of an educational kind, I admit, but it has generally been of this character: It has been directed to showing that in regard to certain children in certain areas the raising of the school age universally to 15 would have an injurious effect upon the industrial prospect of those children. Over and over again the gravamen of the argument of the Opposition has been that in the agricultural areas agricultural requirements and needs would be adversely affected by the passage of the Bill.
11.0 p.m.
That is the only portion of the Bill, in regard to which any sort of educational argument has been consistently advanced, and, in that respect, I submit that that argument has not been based on the ground which the Noble Lord has ad-
vanced here to-night. That argument previously was not based on the ground that the children of the workers should have an ample, well-considered educational scheme and curriculum provided for them. Not at all. The argument advanced on the Second Reading was this: "Why should these children have educational opportunities? They belong to the working classes; they are the workers in the fields, they are the people who ought to be engaged in agriculture." That was the argument then, but tonight the Noble Lord takes other ground. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The point is this—that the whole of the argument on educational grounds which has been advanced from the Opposition, has, invariably, been based upon an interpretation of education of a very narrow kind, namely, its strictly vocational value. I am not against the consideration of the vocational needs of children, if that question is considered in its proper place, but I resent and I trust shall always resent any suggestion that the children of the working classes, whose parents happen to be engaged in some vocation or calling of a manual kind, must necessarily be hewers of wood and drawers of water.
I come now to the justification for our proposal. In the first place, I should like to recall to the House a fact which I think the House has been inclined too frequently to overlook, namely, that the Hadow report which has been referred to so often has, in fact, visualised two departments, if I may so call them, of educational progress. One was educational reorganisation up to the age of 14, but the other was the raising the school age from 14 to 15. My difficulty in regard to the Opposition's abjection to this Bill has been this. It seems to me that they have been thinking of this extra year from 14 to 15 as a year in isolation. They have regarded it as something tacked on to the present educational career of the child, forgetting altogether the process of reorganisation which is now in progress in the schools. I have tried, not so much, I admit, for the purpose of presenting bouquets to the Noble Lord as for the purpose of reminding him of his own past in the matter, to bring home to the Opposition that if they abject to this Bill they are in fact objecting to a legislative enactment which in my judgment completes the process of educational reorganisation.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Muggeridge) when he directs our attention to the importance of having regard to a well-considered four-year course of educational progress. Hon. Members opposite, quite honestly I admit, have been very perturbed lest the period of time spent by the child at school, compulsorily, from 14 to 15, will be a period merely of marking time. I, for my part, should be extremely disappointed if that should prove to be the case. I am quite sure I speak for my right hon. Friend and that he would desire me to say that it is far from the Government's intention. We really and in fact visualise a well-considered four-year course for all children from the age of 11 to the age of 15.
I want now to remind hon. Members apposite that, though it is true that they themselves did not speak in set terms of the raising of the school age, they did speak in their own party literature prior to the last election of giving to all children a well-considered four-year course from the age of 11, and I therefore point out to the Noble Lord that he could not have done it for all children without bringing in the raising of the age to 15. The Noble Lord will tell me, no doubt, that in his conception the 14 to 15 stage was to be a voluntary one. Very well, but if so, it could not apply to all children unless you made it economically possible for the parents of all children to keep their children at school from 14 to 15.

Lord E. PERCY: That argument is like saying that because the party opposite offers work for all, that therefore they would compel everybody to work. It is a pure play upon words, and the hon. Gentleman knows it very well.

Mr. JONES: I will not pursue that argument. It is of the highest importance that the four year course shall not cater for children of only one type of mind, that is to say, that we shall not have regard merely to the bookishly minded child. We are extremely anxious, and it is our firm intention, to provide for all children, whatever their intuitions may be, whatever their gifts or interests may be, whether academical or practical, during that four year period from 11 to 15. If that be so, if all children, whatever their gifts may be, will be so provided
for, then I think that the educational value of this Measure, raising the school age from 14 to 15 and thus putting in a four year course, will be one which perhaps not people to-day but certainly people 10, 20, or 30 years hence will regard as one of the greatest measures of social advance which we have had in our day and generation.
I do not propose at this late hour to enter into a defence of the maintenance allowance proposals, beyond saying this, that we do know—we admit it, and we are giving away nothing perhaps in admitting it—that there come to bear upon the homes of many people who would otherwise desire to provide more amply for their children, certain forces, economic in character, which deprive the parents of those means of implementing their desire to do better for their children educationally. It is that economic compulsion which we are hoping to provide against through the medium of our maintenance allowances, and I must say that it seems to me in the highest degree deplorable that people who ordinarily are fairly comfortable, and not in any economic distress themselves, should deprive other people of access to some means whereby they may be redeemed from this economic pressure.

Hon. Members opposite have argued that these last 12 months which we are adding to the child's school life will be of comparatively little value to the child. If they would only regard it from the point of view of its cumulative effect and value, they might perhaps be inclined to change their opinion. If I may use a simple illustration, it is like the course of a river. The nearer you are to its source, the smaller the river, but the moment it begins to be joined by its tributaries, the value of the river, its strength, majesty, depth and usefulness begin to grow. So it is with this extra year. Each succeeding year which is added to the educational career of the child more adequately equips that child to play its part properly in society. Whether it be popular or not to-day to propose this Bill, I venture to think that in coming years, perhaps a generation from now, men looking back on to-day's educational efforts will regard this legislation as one of the biggest contributions towards equipping future citizens that any Government has made in the last 20 years.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 238.

Division No. 93.]
AYES.
[11.12 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Calne, Derwent Hall-
Gould, F.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cameron, A. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cape, Thomas
Graham, Rt. Hon.Wm. (Edin.Cent.)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Charleton, H. C.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Alpass, J. H.
Chater, Daniel
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Ammon, Charles George
Church, Major A. G.
Groves, Thomas E.


Angell, Sir Norman
Cluse, W. S.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Arnott, John
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Ayles, Walter
Cove, William G.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Daggar, George
Harbord, A.


Barnes, Alfred John
Dallas, George
Hardie, George D.


Barr, James
Dalton, Hugh
Harris, Percy A.


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Bellamy, Albert
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Benn. Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Devlin, Joseph
Haycock, A. W.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Dickson, T.
Hayday, Arthur


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Dukes, C.
Hayes, John Henry


Benson, G.
Duncan, Charles
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Ede, James Chuter
Herriotts, J.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Edmunds, J. E.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Bowen, J. W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwel[...]ty)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hoffman, P. C.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Egan, W. H.
Hollins, A.


Brockway, A. Fenner
England, Colonel A.
Hopkin, Daniel


Bromfield, William
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Horrabin, J. F.


Bromley, J.
Freeman, Peter
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Brooke, W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Isaacs, George


Brothers, M.
Gibbins, Joseph
Jenkins, sir William


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gill, T. H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brown, w. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gillett, George M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Burgess, F. G.
Gossling, A. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Kelly, W. T.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Muff, G.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Kirkwood, D.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Knight, Holford
Nathan, Major H. L,
Snell, Harry


Lang, Gordon
Naylor, T. E.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lathan, G.
Oldfield, J. R.
Sorensen, R.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Palin, John Henry
Stephen, Campbell


Lawrence, Susan
Paling, W[...]frid
Strachey, E. J, St. Loe


Lawson, John James
Palmer, E. T
Strauss, G. R.


Leach, W.
Perry, S. F.
Sullivan, J.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lees, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Pole, Major D. G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lindley, Fred w.
Potts, John S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Price, M. P.
Tillett, Ben


Logan, David Gilbert
Quibell, D. J. K.
Tinker, John Joseph


Longbottom, A. W.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Toole, Joseph


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Raynes, W. R.
Tout, W. J.


Lunn, William
Richards, R.
Townend, A. E.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Vaughan, D. J.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Viant, S. P.


McElwee, A.
Ritson, J.
Walker, J.


McEntee, V. L.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Wallace, H. W.


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Romeril, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


McKinlay, A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


MacLaren, Andrew
Rowson, Guy
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


MacNeill-Weir. L.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Wellock, Wilfred


McShane, John James
Sanders, W. S.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sandham, E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Mansfield, W.
Sawyer, G. F,
West, F. R.


Marcus, M.
Scrymgeour, E.
Westwood, Joseph


Markham, S. F.
Scurr, John
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Marley, J.
Sexton, Sir James
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Marshall, Fred
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Mathers, George
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Matters, L. W.
Sherwood, G, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Maxton, James
Shield, George William
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Messer, Fred
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Middleton, G.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mills, J. E.
Shinwell, E.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Milner, Major J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wise, E. F.


Montague, Frederick
Simmons, C. J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sinkinson, Georqe



Morley, Raiph
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Henderson.


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bracken, B.
Colville, Major D. J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Courtauld, Major J. S,


Albery, Irving James
Brass, Captain Sir William
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Briscoe, Richard George
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N th'l'd., Hexham)
Cranborne, Viscount


Alien, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Buchan, John
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. p.


Atholl, Duchess of
Butler, R. A.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Atkinson, C.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Baillie- Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dalkeith. Earl of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Campbell, E. T.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Carver, Major W. H.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Bainiel, Lord
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Beaumont, M. W.
Cayzer, Maj.sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Chamberlain,Rt. Hn.Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Dixey, A. C.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Duckworth, G. A. V.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Chapman, Sir S.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Blindell, James
Christie, J. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Boothby, R. J. G.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cocker[...]l, Brig.-General Sir George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Everard, W. Lindsay


Boyce, Leslie
Colman, N. C. D.
Falie, Sir Bertram G.




Ferguson, Sir John
Little, Sir E. Graham
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Fermoy, Lord
Liewellin, Major J. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Savery, S. S.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Skelton, A. N.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lymington, viscount
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Ganzon[...], Sir John
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Gault, Lieut.Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Smithers, Waldron


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Somerset, Thomas


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gower, Sir Robert
Marjoribanks, Edward
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Grace, John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Meller, H. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Greene, W. p. Crawford
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Gunston, Captain D. w.
Muirhead, A. J.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thomson, Sir F.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tinne, J. A.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nicholson, D. (Westminster)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hanbury, C.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Train, J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor, T. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hartington, Marquess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Haslam, Henry C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Penny, sir George
Warrender, sir Victor


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Purbrick, R.
Wells, Sydney R.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ramsbotham, H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Iveagh, Countess of
Remer, John R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Withers, Sir John James


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch't[...]y)
Womersley, W. J.


Kinley, J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.



Lane Fox. Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Sir B. Eyres Monsell and Major


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salmon, Major I.
Sir George Hennessy.


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.